get_theme_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the scope of what is read (assigned theme plus overrides and their categories), but it doesn't mention return format, error behavior, or whether inherited themes are resolved. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, listing the exact categories of theme overrides.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the resource, the scope (including all overrides), and the categories. It could be improved by explicitly documenting node_path and potential error cases, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there is no parameter description. The description implies 'node_path' should point to a Control node, but does not explicitly state it. It adds some meaning but leaves the parameter under-documented.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource: a Control's assigned theme plus all overrides (colors, constants, font sizes, styleboxes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that set or create themes.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you need to inspect a Control's theme and overrides. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the read-vs-write distinction from sibling setters is obvious from the word 'Read'.

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