doc_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the output content and parameter meanings, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permissions, error behavior, or limitations. This is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence followed by succinct argument explanations. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's main function and both parameters, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it lacks any usage guidance or behavioral context, which is important given the absence of annotations. For a simple tool it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description adds meaningful context to both parameters: 'name' is described as a slash or title of any version, and 'event' is explained as an optional disambiguation code. This goes beyond the bare schema field names and helps the agent understand acceptable values, though it could be more detailed about formats or constraints.

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The description clearly identifies the tool as providing the version chain for a document, listing current, superseded versions, and amendments. It is specific about the resource and scope, distinguishing it from related tools like amendments. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieve'), relying on a noun phrase that implies the function.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or specific use cases beyond describing what the tool returns. The only implied usage is that it is appropriate for viewing version history, but this is not articulated as a recommendation.

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