List a page’s history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, contents ('who changed what and when'), distinctive pagination behavior, and the role of returned version IDs as inputs to other tools. No contradiction exists between the description and the annotation.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words: the core operation and output content come first, then the crucial pagination and version-ID context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a fully described input schema, the description supplies the essential output semantics: what is returned, in what order, and how the returned IDs relate to sibling version operations. No output schema exists, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema, which is 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some relevant context by emphasizing pagination and the downstream use of version IDs, but it does not provide per-parameter details beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Lists the stored versions of a page, newest first, with who changed what and when.' It clarifies ordering and content, and the closing sentence ties this tool's output (version ids) to distinct sibling operations, so it is clearly differentiated from get_page_version, purge_page_history, and other history-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 note that 'This is the one Wiki.js query that really paginates' gives a clear behavioral cue for when this tool is appropriate, and the version-id link indicates the workflow: list history first, then pass IDs to get_page_version, diff_page_versions, or restore_page_version. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name a non-paginated alternative for simply retrieving one version, so it falls just short of a 5.

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