List page history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it exceeds expectations. It reveals important quirks: 'a restore shows as an edit here, and the snapshot it created reports action 'restored' via wiki_get_page_version,' and the attribution limitation: 'every edit made through this connector is attributed to user id 1 ('API')... cannot tell one agent session from another.' These are non-obvious behaviors that go beyond typical parameter descriptions.

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, focused paragraph that contains no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers output details, behavioral nuances, and a pointer to a related tool. Every clause adds value, and the structure is logical.

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 there is no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return fields, total count, and edge cases. It also provides guidance on how to drill into a specific version via wiki_get_page_version. For a list-history tool with moderate complexity, this is a fully complete description that covers all necessary context.

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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (id, limit, offsetPage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that `total` in the result is the true version count, which is essential for understanding limit/offset pagination and slice semantics. This elevates the score to 4.

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 function: 'List the revision history of a page' and enumerates the output fields (versionId, versionDate, authorName, actionType). It explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool wiki_get_page_version by noting that versionId should be passed to that tool for snapshot inspection. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 strong usage context by explaining the meaning of `total` for distinguishing sliced trails from the full history, and it directs users to the alternative tool for snapshot inspection ('Pass a versionId to wiki_get_page_version to inspect a snapshot'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide a full when/when-not structure, so a 4 is appropriate.

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