Get Page History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the requested version doesn't exist, no mention of the token-cost tradeoff of raw HTML (which lives only in the schema), no auth context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing needs trimming. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than well-structured guidance.

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 retrieval tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and an output schema, the essentials are covered. What's missing is disambiguation from the other page-reading siblings, which matters in a toolset this large.

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 description coverage is 100%, with page_id format examples and the markdown-vs-HTML token warning fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a historical version of a Confluence page), with the 'historical version' qualifier distinguishing it in spirit from confluence_get_page and confluence_get_page_diff. However, it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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 phrase 'historical version' implies the use case (retrieving an older revision), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as confluence_get_page (current) or confluence_get_page_diff (comparison). Usage is left to inference against ~80 sibling tools.

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