getVersionHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves version history but doesn't specify what the output includes (e.g., list of versions, timestamps, authors), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity of version history retrieval, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how versions are formatted, or any behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'content path' without adding details like format, examples, or constraints (e.g., path syntax, required permissions). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, providing minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 'Get version history for a content path' clearly states the action (get) and resource (version history) with a specific scope (content path). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'compareVersions' or 'restoreVersion', which also deal with version-related operations, leaving the exact differentiation unclear.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as 'compareVersions' or 'restoreVersion', which could be relevant for version management tasks. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.

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