List Page Revisions

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. What does add value is the disclosed failure mode: students often lack history access and Canvas returns a permission error, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, caveat second, next-step pointer last. No filler and nothing a reader must parse twice.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and warns about the permission failure path. Pagination or result limits for a potentially long revision history are not addressed, which is the one remaining gap for a listing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both properties already document themselves, including where to obtain them (list_pages, list_courses). The description adds no syntax, format or derivation detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus the payload an agent gets back: 'List the edit history of one course page: revision numbers, editors and dates.' That is distinguishable at a glance from list_pages and get_page_revision.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward to get_page_revision for reading a single revision, and flags that students may not be able to see page history at all. It lacks a clear when-not statement relative to get_page_revision beyond the implicit list-vs-single split.

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