Get page history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate two traits: newest-first ordering and pagination, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether the response includes full content or metadata only, nor any limits or caveats.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and key attributes (newest first, paginated) 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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the core purpose, ordering, and pagination. It could explicitly contrast with get_page_version, but given sibling context and structured data, the gap is minor.

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%: all three parameters (id, offsetPage, offsetSize) are already described. The description's mention of pagination aligns with offsetPage/offsetSize but does not add new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 specifically names the verb ('List') and the resource ('version history trail of a page'), including the useful detail that results are ordered newest first. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page (current page) and get_page_version (specific version).

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 implies when to use the tool (when a paginated version history is needed), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a single version, use get_page_version instead.' Sibling names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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