Theme Active

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it names the data sources (system.theme and `drush pm:list`) and specifies the returned payload (default/admin machine names, each enabled theme's package, path, version, plus disabled counts). It omits explicit read-only framing, but 'List' plus the disclosed sources make the operation unambiguous.

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, no filler, and the scope (what is listed) is front-loaded before the implementation/return details. Every clause contributes information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, sources, and return contents adequately. The one gap is sibling differentiation against theme_info and theme_get, which the description never addresses.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the schema already shows; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the site's themes', and enumerates scope (default, admin, enabled ones). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools theme_info, theme_search, or theme_get, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus theme_info, theme_get, or theme_search, nor any prerequisite or context statement. The listing intent is implied by the verb alone; the agent must infer the routing from the surrounding toolset.

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