List Doc Page Revisions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds key behavioral details: results are 'newest first,' only metadata is returned, and project context is required. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but the added context is meaningful.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds behavioral and workflow context efficiently.

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?

The description covers purpose, ordering, metadata-only behavior, and the content/restore workflow, which is sufficient for a simple list operation. It does not describe pagination or return fields, but the metadata-only framing partially mitigates that gap.

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 three parameters already have descriptions in the input schema ('The public Id (Guid) of the page/version/documentation'), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming this is a page-revision operation.

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: 'List a page's revision history, newest first.' It also explicitly says 'Metadata only,' which distinguishes it from content-reading tools like get_doc_page_revision.

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 gives clear routing guidance: read content via get_doc_page_revision and restore via manage_doc_page, implying this tool is for browsing history only. It also notes 'Requires project context,' which is a useful precondition, though it does not explicitly explain 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.