scf_get_capability_theme

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by describing a read operation. It adds value by specifying what data will be returned (posture, multi-axis scores, band, legacy posture_percentage), which goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent set expectations.

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 that names the operation, the resource, and the key distinguishing return fields. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the tool returns and what kind of resource it operates on. Combined with the schema's parameter documentation and the readOnly annotation, nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both org_id and theme_code documented including how to obtain them from list tools. The description itself adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single capability theme (KSI)') and enumerates the key returned content: posture, multi-axis scores, band, and legacy posture_percentage. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like scf_list_capability_themes and related getters like scf_get_capability_theme_scorecard.

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 the use case clear: retrieve one specific capability theme by org_id and theme_code, with rich posture data. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'single theme' framing gives adequate context against the sibling list and scorecard tools.

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