get_wiki_page_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it states the operation is a READ, the page is not changed and its version does not move. It also explains error semantics (404 for invalid version or inaccessible page) and explicitly notes there is no restore capability.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows naturally into usage, parameter semantics, error behavior, and a warning. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description covers the return content (title, content, who saved it). It also addresses edge cases (never-saved version, inaccessible page) and provides critical guidance about not restoring old versions, making the description fully complete for this read-only 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 schema describes only one of two parameters (version). The description adds significant semantics for version: counting from 1, incrementing per save, and referring to get_wiki_page for the current number. However, page_uuid is not elaborated beyond the schema's format/pattern, leaving a small gap.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving what a wiki page said at an earlier version, including title, content, and author. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing get_wiki_page for the current version and noting there is no restore tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is how you recover something that was overwritten' and 'Reach for it the moment you find that a page no longer says what you put there.' It contrasts with get_wiki_page and warns against attempting a restore, steering users toward read + append.

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