Get Nacos config history detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying that this reads a historical revision (not current config), that the nid comes from the list tool, and that namespace behavior differs across Nacos versions (default namespace is '' on 1.x/2.x and 'public' on 3.x, both accepted). This is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the critical prerequisite (nid from the list tool) is stated immediately, and the compatibility note is a single compact sentence. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it reads, how to obtain the required nid, and version compatibility. The namespace default behavior is already in the schema. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or whether the content is returned raw or parsed, but for a simple read operation with strong annotations and schema coverage, this is adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the key semantic link that nid is the revision id from nacos_list_config_history, which is valuable. However, it doesn't add much beyond that for group, dataId, or namespaceId, since the schema already provides examples and the namespace default behavior is described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('content and metadata of one historical revision of a configuration entry'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool by referencing the revision id returned by nacos_list_config_history. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from nacos_get_config and nacos_list_config_history.

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 explicitly says to use the revision id (nid) returned by nacos_list_config_history, which is a clear prerequisite and usage instruction. It also states compatibility with Nacos 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x, which helps the agent know when this tool is applicable. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the reference to the sibling list tool and the clear 'read one historical revision' scope provides strong usage guidance.

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