read_post_history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: ordering (oldest first, then current text), the definition of a revision (the text an edit replaced), provenance metadata (when and by which path: agent, site, admin), and the record's start date with its truncation consequence. This is rich disclosure that structured fields do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying information: what is returned, how revisions are defined, and the record's temporal boundary. Nothing is redundant, and the core behavior is front-loaded. Phrasing is slightly compressed in the provenance clause ('with when and by which path'), but the structure holds up.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does so well: ordering, revision semantics, and per-revision metadata. It omits any pagination or size limits for long histories and does not state what happens for a nonexistent post_id, which are minor residual gaps for a read-only single-parameter tool.

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% for the single post_id parameter, so the schema supplies only the type/format. The description implies an identifier for 'one post' but adds no format, sourcing, or lookup semantics. Baseline 3 for minimal compensation on a low-coverage but very simple single-parameter signature.

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 states a precise resource and scope: the earlier versions of one post plus its current text, returned oldest-first. That cleanly separates it from siblings like edit_post/delete_post and from plain content readers, though it never names an alternative explicitly. Purpose is unmistakable, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied (call it when you need a post's revision history) rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y', and no alternatives such as read_text or edit_post are referenced. The one genuinely useful usage caveat is the data-boundary note that posts edited before 2026-10-08 show as edited with no history, which tells the agent when to expect an empty result.

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