get_theme_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It specifies that the tool returns past themes from completed contests with a limit of up to 200 and optional track filtering. However, it omits details like the sorting order, exact return fields, or whether authentication is required. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the tool's core purpose, and the second provides a usage tip. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: source (completed contests), scope (up to 200), and filtering options. It could mention the return format or ordering, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple query tool.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (track and limit). The description adds modest value by reiterating that track can be left blank for all, which matches the schema's default of ALL. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 states it returns past themes from completed contests, with a maximum of 200 entries. It also gives a practical use case (studying Omniology's themes and their performance), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contest_rules or get_judge_rubric_explainer.

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 explains when to use the tool (for studying themes) and how to filter by track or leave blank for all. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, the context is clear enough given that no other tool provides theme history.

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