docmost_get_page_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the history returns (e.g., timestamps, authors), if there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving historical data with 2 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what the revision history includes (e.g., changes, authors, timestamps) or behavioral constraints. With 100% schema coverage for inputs, it covers basic functionality but lacks depth for proper agent understanding.

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%, with both parameters ('page_id' and 'limit') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does 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 clearly states the action ('Get revision history') and resource ('of a page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'docmost_get_page' or 'docmost_recent_pages' that also retrieve page-related information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'docmost_get_page' (for current page content) and 'docmost_recent_pages' (for recent pages), there's no indication of when historical revisions are needed versus other page-related queries.

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