wiki_get_history_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool retrieves historical version content but does not disclose the response format (e.g., plain text, HTML) or any potential side effects. The basic read behavior is clear, but details like diff vs. full content are missing.

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 with a parenthetical clarifying the purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisite steps (e.g., using wiki_get_history to get history_id) and does not address potential limitations. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not mention the parameters at all. Parameter names doc_id and history_id are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no guidance on how to obtain history_id (e.g., from wiki_get_history).

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '文档某个历史版本的内容' (content of a historical version of a document), with the purpose '用于对比' (for comparison). This distinguishes it from siblings like wiki_get_history (which likely retrieves metadata) and wiki_get_document (current version).

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 explicitly states the use case '用于对比' (for comparison), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives, though sibling names suggest when to use others.

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