aism_themes_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely new behavioral fact that a specific permission scope plus native theme access is required. It does not explain what "native theme access" means or how inactive themes appear in the result, but the core disclosure beyond annotations is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler: the returned fields are front-loaded and the permission prerequisite follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the auth requirement. What remains thin is whether results cover inactive/child themes and whether pagination exists, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ("Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site."), the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the site parameter — no note on how multi-site results differ or how an invalid site name behaves — so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ("List installed themes") plus the exact fields returned (stylesheet identifiers, versions, active/inactive status), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings aism_theme_install, aism_theme_upload and aism_theme_action. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives prerequisites ("Requires themes:read and native theme access") but no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the alternative tools for installing, uploading or activating a theme. Usage is only implied by the name and the sibling set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.