app_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dual get/set functionality and lists theme options, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are persistent, side effects, or error handling. For a tool that can modify application state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a focused 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (dual get/set operation), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the parameter semantics well and states the purpose clearly. However, it lacks behavioral details like persistence or permissions, which would be helpful for a mutation-capable tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single parameter 'value': its purpose (theme to set), valid enum-like values (light, dark, etc.), and the semantic meaning of omitting it (to get current theme). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get or set the iTerm2 theme.' It specifies the verb ('get or set') and resource ('iTerm2 theme'), making the functionality unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'profile_apply' or 'profile_show' that might also affect appearance, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance: omit the 'value' parameter to get the current theme, include it to set a theme. It lists valid theme values, which helps in decision-making. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'profile_apply' for broader settings) or mention any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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