wikijs_get_page_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns version dates, authors, and change types, but does not mention that the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior, or detail any side effects. The schema covers pagination defaults, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return fields.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and return content. Every part is essential.

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 that there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning return fields (version dates, authors, change types), but it is vague about structure, ordering, or error conditions. For a history retrieval tool, more detail about the response format would improve completeness.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the required 'id' parameter, but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for 'offset' and 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action 'get', the resource 'edit history trail', and the key 'by ID'. The description also mentions the returned data fields (version dates, authors, change types). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like wikijs_get_page_by_id or wikijs_get_page_version.

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 implies usage for retrieving edit history, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wikijs_get_page_version or wikijs_get_page_links. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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