read_theme

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state that files are not modified, nor does it clarify what 'type-aware grouping' does or what output format to expect. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 short sentence with no redundant words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, and the term 'type-aware grouping' is used without explanation, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return values and behavioral nuances. It fails to explain what 'type-aware grouping' means or what data the agent will receive, leaving significant gaps for a tool that reads a potentially complex Theme resource. This makes the description inadequate for informed 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?

The input schema already describes the single parameter 'path' as 'Path to Theme .tres or .theme file', giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and the specific resource ('Theme resource'), making the purpose distinct from generic tools like read_resource. However, the phrase 'type-aware grouping' is vague and doesn't fully explain what this grouping entails, preventing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_resource or read_stylebox. The description omits any context about suitable scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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