get_knowledge_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the retrieval lifecycle, the default metadata-only behavior when include_bodies is false, exact-version semantics, and the error behavior for missing versions. This gives the agent a clear picture of what calling the tool will and will not do.

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 bilingual structure doubles the length, but it is organized with clear labels (Lifecycle, Purpose, Args) and front-loaded with the core definition. A slightly leaner single-language version would be more concise, but the structure is easy to scan and every section earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential context: lifecycle, intended use cases, parameter semantics, defaults, and edge-case behavior. An output schema exists, so explicit return-value documentation is not necessary here. 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 0%, but the Args section fully compensates. It explains that item_id is the stable HEAD id not a snapshot id, that include_bodies defaults to false and controls body inclusion, and that version is an exact optional lookup with defined miss behavior. This is exactly the semantic depth the bare schema lacks.

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 returns the revision history of one knowledge item with a specific verb ('Return the revision history') and resource ('one knowledge item'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_knowledge and get_relevant_knowledge by focusing on historical snapshots rather than current content.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call when you need what changed on an item, when, and what the prior body looked like', plus concrete use cases (audit, recover replaced content). It also gives a when-not nuance: a version miss returns version_not_found, never a nearest match, which prevents misuse.

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