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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: newest-first ordering, the returned field set, and the subtle rule that a change held for its build or in error is not yet live. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true annotation, which is surprising for what reads as a pure listing tool, leaving an agent unable to tell whether any state is affected. That unresolved tension caps the score.

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 scope constraint is front-loaded and the returned fields are enumerated compactly, with the rollback pointer closing the sentence. The telegraphic fragments ('On one site of the account, named in site') are slightly awkward to parse but carry no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return fields and their ordering. However, it omits pagination or result limits for a history endpoint that could be long, and it never pins down the 'theme' identifier format, which are the two things an agent most needs before calling.

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 50%: the 'site' parameter is documented in the schema and reinforced by 'On one site of the account, named in site.' The 'theme' parameter has no schema description and the description does not clarify whether it takes a theme name, id, or handle, so an agent must guess its format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: a theme's commit history for a single site, ordered newest first. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_theme_files and list_themes by returning commits (sha, author, when, message) rather than files or theme records. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list', so an agent must infer the read action from the noun phrase.

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?

It names a concrete follow-on path: 'restore_theme_revision takes a sha and is the rollback,' which tells an agent what to do with the shas this tool returns. It does not state when to prefer this over list_themes or build_theme, nor does it set preconditions, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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