get-page-history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (IDs, timestamps, authors, size changes, edit summaries) and pagination behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not specify sort order, error behavior, or authentication requirements, leaving minor gaps.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide useful return and usage details. No redundant or vague wording.

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 read-only history tool, the description is complete: it specifies the output fields and pagination, while the schema covers all input parameters. There is no output schema, so listing the return fields is essential and well-handled.

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 schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that older_than is used for pagination, which is not explicit in the schema's description. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 tool retrieves the revision history of a wiki page, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get-page (page content) and get-revision (single 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 provides usage guidance for pagination with older_than, but it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The context implies this is the tool for revision history, but no direct when/when-not guidance is given.

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