confluence_history

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

Description fully discloses behavior: metadata-only, newest-first ordering, filtering capability for since parameter (numeric version or ISO date), limit defaults (20, with 0 meaning unlimited). It also references a known command for consistency. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden and does so completely.

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?

Description is compact and efficient. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then details parameters and behavioral notes. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned fields (version number, timestamp, author account ID, edit message, minor-edit flag). It also references necessary sibling tools for post-processing. The tool is straightforward, and the description covers all necessary context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. But the description adds significant value: explains the since parameter accepts two formats with examples, clarifies limit default and that 0 means unlimited, and explains the id parameter. This goes beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists version history metadata for a Confluence page. It specifies the returned fields (version number, timestamp, author account ID, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like confluence_read and confluence_user_get.

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it notes that content bodies are not fetched and directs to confluence_read for that. It also suggests using confluence_user_get for resolving author IDs. The since and limit parameters are explained with usage details.

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