mediawiki_get_revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: it states the tool returns a revision list with timestamps, users, sizes, and edit summaries, and mentions default and max limits. It does not contradict 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 labeled sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, RETURNS) and is free of fluff. Every sentence either guides usage, clarifies behavior, or documents parameters/returns. It is both concise and informative.

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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter details, and return format. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds a default limit (50) that differs from the schema default (20), and clarifies the purpose of each parameter concisely. It also specifies the return structure, which is not in 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 begins with a clear statement 'Get revision history for a specific page.' It provides specific example queries like 'who edited the FAQ' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools such as mediawiki_get_recent_changes and mediawiki_compare_revisions, ensuring the agent understands the tool's exact 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 includes a 'USE WHEN' section with concrete user intents and a 'NOT FOR' section that lists what the tool should not be used for, along with explicit alternative tool names. This gives the agent precise guidance on when to invoke this tool versus others.

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