List Page History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: result ordering is newest-first and Docmost persists a version a few minutes after edits stop, which tells the agent a just-made edit may not yet appear. It does not discuss pagination limits, but the schema does.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, the write-latency caveat, and the hand-off to sibling tools. Ordering and author information are front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it covers scope, ordering, latency semantics, and alternatives. Only the pagination story (cursor) is left entirely to the schema, a minor omission.

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 explains page id/slug/URL, limit, and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the versions of a page') plus the ordering ('newest first') and the payload detail ('with who changed it'). This clearly separates it from get_page_version, list_snapshots, and the other page-related siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Read one with get_page_version or compare with diff_page,' which distinguishes enumeration from retrieval and diffing. It lacks any explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., list_snapshots vs. version history), so it stops short of a 5.

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