Get a historic Redmine project wiki page revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: required Redmine permissions (view_wiki_pages plus view_wiki_edits), possible HTTP 401/403/404 responses, and the guarantee that it never reads the history listing or mutates data. This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Five dense, front-loaded sentences cover endpoint, constraints, includes, results, permissions, errors, and side effects without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information appears first.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only tool: it specifies the endpoint path, parameter constraints, the only include option, permission requirements, error responses, and confirms no mutation. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters fully. The description adds some semantics by mapping parameters to the URL path and emphasizing 'safe' positive integers, but these largely restate the schema constraints. It does not meaningfully change how an agent would fill in the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one historic project wiki page revision,' which clearly identifies the action and object. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project_wiki_page by emphasizing 'historic' and 'revision,' making its scope unmistakable.

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 clear context: it reads a specific versioned revision, never reads the history listing, and does not change Redmine data. It does not explicitly name an alternative like get_project_wiki_page for current revisions, but the historical vs. current distinction is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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