get-page-history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (IDs, timestamps, authors, size changes, edit summaries) and the pagination mechanism, but says nothing about permission requirements, default limits, or whether an empty/nonexistent page errors.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return content and the pagination hint. No wasted wording, though it could be marginally denser.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately covers return fields and pagination. For a simple read tool this is largely sufficient, with only minor gaps around limits and error behavior.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description only reiterates older_than as the pagination key, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (revision history of a wiki page), which is clearly distinct from sibling get-revision (single revision) and get-page (current content). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is 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 gives one concrete usage hint — use older_than to paginate long histories — which is genuinely helpful. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get-revision or get-page, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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