List Nacos config history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the returned items are revision summaries carrying an nid usable for detail retrieval, and the tool is compatible across Nacos 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x. This is meaningful without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the nid-to-detail relationship is stated in one clause, and version compatibility is a compact final addition.

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 listing tool with five well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the output's key field and the follow-up tool, though with no output schema it could have said slightly more about other returned fields or default ordering.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents every parameter. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action and resource: 'List the revision history of a configuration entry.' It also clarifies the output's role by noting each item carries a revision id (nid), which clearly separates this from current-config tools like nacos_get_config and from search-oriented tools like nacos_search_configs.

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 clear context by positioning this tool as the listing step whose nid feeds into nacos_get_config_history_detail. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives such as nacos_get_config, but the workflow implication is strong and the sibling tool is referenced directly.

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