Theme Regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context: declaration order from info.yml, that each block carries label/plugin/weight/enabled state, that empty regions are shown, and that placements in undefined regions are visible. It also names the two data sources (DRUPAL_ROOT info.yml and JSON:API client for placements). This is genuinely useful beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then supporting detail. Every sentence earns its place except perhaps the final dependency note, which is useful context. No waste.

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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only inspection tool: it explains what is returned, data sources, and edge cases (empty regions, orphaned placements). An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The only gap is the undocumented theme_name parameter.

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 one required parameter (theme_name), so the description should ideally clarify the parameter. It does not name or explain theme_name, nor its format (machine name vs label). Baseline is not met, but the description does imply the theme context by saying regions come from the theme's info.yml.

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 resource and what it returns: 'Region layout of a theme with the blocks placed in each one.' Clear verb+resource. Sibling differentiation is weak, however - theme_blocks, theme_info, theme_region_create, and block_region_list are all nearby, and the description doesn't explicitly say how this differs from theme_blocks (which presumably lists blocks more generically).

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description implies a diagnostic/read intent but doesn't say 'use this when you need to inspect region assignments' or contrast with theme_blocks or block_region_list.

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