Get Post History

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

The diff=true semantics are materially useful behavior the annotations cannot express: version 1 carries full text, later versions only carry deltas. Ordering and included fields are also disclosed. Missing are error/edge behavior (nonexistent number, deleted posts) and volume limits, which matters given openWorldHint=true.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero padding, and the core capability is front-loaded before the diff nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully previews shape (author, time, diffs). What is missing for a history/read tool is guidance on error cases and whether history is bounded or truncated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and it only explains 'diff' — the one non-obvious parameter. 'course' and 'number' are left undefined; 'number' in particular is ambiguous (post number vs. version number) and is not clarified anywhere in the schema.

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 and resource ('Show every version of a post') plus the ordering ('oldest first') and payload ('author and time'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-version get_post. It never names a sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Use it to see what an instructor changed in an announcement or a question' gives a concrete triggering scenario, which is stronger than nothing. It stops short of contrasting with get_post/list_posts or stating when history is unnecessary, so no exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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