list_page_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return-value semantics (version ids) and the relationship to restore_page_version, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but that's minor given the simple nature.

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 sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. It delivers the essential information without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and how to use the result.

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 tool's simplicity (two integer parameters, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and the return value. However, it doesn't explain the collectiveId parameter, which could cause confusion for agents unfamiliar with the domain. Since schema coverage is zero, this omission is a noticeable gap.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not mention collectiveId or pageId explicitly. The names are somewhat self-explanatory (pageId), but collectiveId is ambiguous without context. Since the description provides no parameter guidance, it fails to add value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists version history for a page and specifies the output (version ids). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_page_version by explicitly linking the returned ids to that tool. This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from other page-related tools.

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 implies usage: you use this tool when you need to see revision history or obtain version ids for restoration. It names the related tool (restore_page_version) and the linkage, which guides the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the context it's clear enough.

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