Read a status's edit history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it specifies the order (oldest first) and that all published versions are returned, which is not captured by annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that state the core behavior and a key insight about public accessibility. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough detail for an agent to call it correctly: it explains the output order and the public nature. It does not describe the exact return format, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable.

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?

The input schema describes the 'account' parameter but leaves 'id' undocumented, giving 50% schema coverage. The description does not mention parameters directly, but the tool's name and context make it clear 'id' is a status ID. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the edit history of a status, ordered oldest first. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_status and get_status_source by focusing specifically on the history of published versions, and the mention that it works for any public post adds scope.

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 clear context by stating that edits are public and the tool works for anyone's post, not just the user's own. This implies appropriate usage for retrieving public edit histories, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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