Get page version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explains important behavioral details: default whole-content range, inclusive 0-based bounds, and Python-style negative indexing. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are expected.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then compact yet complete explanation of the optional slicing behavior. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 tool has an output schema, so the return structure need not be described. The description covers the core behavior and the non-obvious line-range semantics thoroughly. It lacks explicit error cases or a note that versionId should come from get_page_history, but the schema partly covers that, making it sufficiently 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?

The description significantly adds meaning to startLine and endLine by explaining the 0-based inclusive ranges, default (0..-1), and negative index semantics beyond the schema's field descriptions. It does not elaborate on pageId/versionId beyond the schema, but versionId already has a useful reference in the schema ('From get_page_history trail').

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 the action ('Fetch'), resource ('content of a specific historical version of a page'), and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_page (current content) and restore_page_version (mutation).

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 conveys clear context for use (historical content, optional line slicing) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It relies on the distinct purpose rather than an explicit comparison, which is acceptable but not maximally instructive.

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