View Document History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful context about automatic version saving, which is beyond annotations. However, it does not detail other behaviors like whether it returns metadata or content diffs, which the annotations do not explicitly cover.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, adds one contextual fact, and names the alternative. Perfectly concise.

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 simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description explains the automatic versioning behavior and points to restore for reverting. It omits details like whether history is ordered or includes timestamps, but the output schema likely covers that. Sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'doc_id' refers to a document but does not explicitly explain how to obtain it, its format, or that it identifies the document whose history is viewed. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Doc Id' title.

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 'View the version history for a document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vault_doc_restore (revert) and vault_get_doc (current content), making the tool's 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 explicit context: when a document is updated, previous versions are saved automatically. It also names the alternative for reverting (vault_doc_restore), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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