confluence_get_page_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: results are paginated (cursor), output is trimmed by default, and full=true returns raw output. It does not cover error handling or authentication needs, but the provided details are sufficient for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: the first states what it does, the second explains pagination and trimming options.

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 no output schema and five parameters, the description covers the main aspects (purpose, pagination, trimming). It could mention the 'bodyFormat' parameter's role, but the schema already documents it, so the description is largely complete for a retrieval tool.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context for pagination and trimming but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, especially for 'bodyFormat' and 'limit'.

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 starts with 'Get version history for a specific page,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'confluence_get_page_version' by focusing on the full history rather than a single version.

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 explains pagination and the use of the cursor parameter, and hints at when to use 'full=true' for untrimmed responses. However, it does not explicitly guide when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'confluence_get_page_version' for a single version.

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