mediawiki_get_revisions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns a revision list with timestamps, users, sizes, and edit summaries, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, RETURNS) and is front-loaded. However, the inaccuracy about the limit default and omission of a parameter prevent a perfect score.

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 6 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage guidelines, and return format. However, the inaccuracy about limit default and missing rationale parameter, along with no mention of openWorldHint implications, leave gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description contains an inaccuracy: it states default limit is 50, while the schema says default 20. It also omits the 'rationale' parameter. This misleads the agent, reducing the score.

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 'Get revision history for a specific page' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating what it is not for and naming alternatives (mediawiki_get_recent_changes, mediawiki_compare_revisions).

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 explicit use cases ('who edited the FAQ', 'show edit history of X') and when not to use it ('Wiki-wide activity', 'comparing versions'), with direct references to alternative tools. This fully guides the agent on proper invocation.

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