get_theme_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals the maximum result count ('up to 200') and the scope ('completed contests'), but does not specify the return structure, ordering, or whether scores are included. The phrase 'what has scored well' is suggestive but ambiguous, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact output.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool returns, why it's useful, and how to filter. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core resource, scope, and parameters. However, it fails to specify the exact fields returned (e.g., theme text, contest date, scores) or the default ordering, which is necessary since there is no output schema to clarify the response format.

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?

Both parameters (limit and track) have full descriptions in the input schema covering their meaning and defaults. The description's mention of 'up to 200' and 'Filter by track' merely reinforces schema constraints without adding new semantic details, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the resource as 'Past themes (up to 200) from completed contests,' naming exactly what the tool returns. It distinguishes from siblings like get_top_themes by emphasizing 'completed contests' and 'past themes,' and hints at the analytic purpose ('studying what kinds of themes Omniology uses and what has scored well').

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 provides a clear intended use case: 'useful for studying what kinds of themes Omniology uses and what has scored well.' It also gives parameter guidance ('Filter by track or leave blank for all'), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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