Get Page History

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description's 'Get a historical version' adds mild context that this returns non-current content. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response shape or edge cases, but the schema and output schema carry much of that burden, and there is no contradiction with 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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it relies entirely on the schema for parameter-level details, which is acceptable given the schema's richness.

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 tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose an agent needs. It could be slightly improved by naming sibling alternatives or explicitly stating when to choose this tool, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 detailed descriptions for page_id (including an example URL), version (minimum and role), and convert_to_markdown (including token usage caveat). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('historical version of a specific Confluence page'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like confluence_get_page (current version) and confluence_get_page_diff (version comparison). It is unambiguous about what the tool retrieves.

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 when to use the tool—when a historical version is needed—but gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention related tools like confluence_get_page for current content or confluence_get_page_diff for comparing versions, so an agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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