read_doc_history

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context: every write archives the prior copy, nothing is deleted, and a returned revision is re-hashed against its stored digest. This is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the archive rationale, then the two parameter behaviors and use cases. Information-dense, though the middle clauses are slightly long and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it describes both the list form (digests and dates) and the single-revision form (full content, re-hashed). Combined with the archive semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds return-shape meaning per parameter value: omitting version yields the list of revisions with digests and dates, supplying version yields that revision's full re-hashed content. That is more than the schema's terse per-field notes.

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 (read/list) plus resource (retained revision) and scope ('Every write archives the prior copy... this is the reader for that archive'), clearly separating it from the sibling read_doc which reads the current copy. An agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'audit question - what did this document say at version N' and 'compare a document with what it replaced.' This is clear context for when to reach for it. It does not name read_doc explicitly as the alternative for current content, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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