get_topic_history

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 not state whether results are paginated, sorted, time-bounded, or whether a missing topic errors or returns empty. For a read tool with a single required param this is thin.

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?

One clean sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No waste, though it is arguably too short for a tool whose parameter semantics are opaque.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage the definition is missing the context needed to call it correctly among topic-similar siblings.

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 0% and the description says only 'a specific topic'. Four siblings all deal with topics or attempts, and the description gives no syntax, allowed values, or matching semantics (exact vs substring, known topic list) beyond the bare parameter name.

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?

Clear verb+resource: retrieves the user's attempts filtered by topic. It is distinguishable from get_attempt_history and get_recent_attempts at a high level, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how this differs from get_attempt_history, get_recent_attempts, or get_problem_stats. The agent must infer the use case.

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