post_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the ordering of results, the fields returned (version, draft, author, note, created, preview), and the lifecycle fact that a version is saved on every Claude change and while the user edits.

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?

Front-loads the scope and ordering, then the field list, then the how-to for the optional parameter. Every clause carries information, with no filler or restated name.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately documents the returned shape and ordering, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain (pagination/limits, behavior when no versions exist), but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, setting the baseline at 3. The description's only added meaning for 'version' ('get its full text ... to compare with the current post') largely restates the schema text 'Optional: one version's full text.'

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 resource ('Every saved version of the post and its variants') and a concrete scope ('newest first'), then enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this history-listing tool from sibling mutators like restore_post_version or delete_post_variants without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear context cue — 'Pass version to get its full text, e.g. to compare with the current post' — which tells the agent when the optional parameter matters. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. restore_post_version) or stating when not to use this tool, so it falls below the explicit when/when-not bar.

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