get-page-history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world hints. Description adds value by specifying pagination details (20 revisions per segment, newest first), error behavior for non-existent title, and parameter usage beyond schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information (what it returns), no redundant content, highly efficient.

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?

The description covers returned fields, ordering, pagination, and error handling. No output schema exists, but the list of fields is provided; could optionally mention the result structure (array) but is adequately complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns revision metadata (specific fields listed) for a wiki page, distinguishes from siblings like get-revision (single revision) and get-page (page content) by focusing on history, and mentions ordering and error conditions.

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 pagination guidance (olderThan/newerThan mutual exclusivity) but does not explicitly differentiate usage from sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives like get-revision or compare-pages.

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