get_config_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail of pagination, but does not disclose other traits like sorting behavior or response format beyond what annotations and schema provide. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence, 'Get configuration history revisions with pagination', with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly scannable.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with an output schema present, so the description need not explain return values. The schema fully documents the parameters. The description could have noted that it lists multiple revisions or pointed to get_config_revision for single-revision access, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 clear parameter descriptions for page, sort_by, and page_size. The description's mention of pagination aligns with the page/page_size parameters but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving configuration history revisions and explicitly notes pagination support, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_config_revision or compare_config_revisions, the name and context make the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as get_config_revision for a single revision or compare_config_revisions for comparisons. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the name and context.

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