confluence_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only metadata is returned (not bodies), specifies return fields, and describes filter/limit behavior. It implicitly indicates read-only nature but doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness. Minor gap, but overall transparent.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence sets purpose and returns list; second sentence packs filter/limit details and a CLI reference. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with 3 fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, filtering, and limit. It lacks mention of error handling or pagination beyond limit, but is largely complete.

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. The description adds context: explains 'since' accepts version number or ISO 8601 date, clarifies limit default and meaning of 0. This adds value beyond schema, earning a 4.

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 'List version history (metadata only) for a Confluence page' and lists specific returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'confluence_read' by explicitly noting it does not fetch version bodies, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use (for metadata) and when not (for bodies, directing to 'confluence_read'). It details filtering options ('since' accepts version number or date) and limit behavior (default 20, 0 unlimited), providing clear context for selection.

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