unmanned_page_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: results are newest-first, capped at 50, nothing is deleted, and the history serves as the durable attribution record. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the behavioral core is present for a simple history-read tool.

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 two sentences are compact and information-dense. They front-load the key behavior (newest first, max 50) and then add the crucial preservation/attribution context with no filler.

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 description covers the most important behavioral facts and works well for a simple one-parameter history tool. However, because there is no output schema, no annotation, and no sibling differentiation, the agent still misses information about what a history entry contains and how this tool relates to alternatives like 'changes' or 'read_page'.

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 0%, but there is only one required parameter, entity_id. The description's phrase 'a page's revision history' indicates the entity in question is a page, which provides partial semantic grounding for entity_id. It does not explicitly confirm that entity_id is the page identifier or explain how to source the correct entity_id.

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 identifies the resource ('a page's revision history') and adds useful ordering/cap details ('newest first, max 50'). However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a specific verb action, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like unmanned_changes or unmanned_read_page.

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 the intended use by calling the history 'the attribution record' and noting that 'nothing is ever deleted,' which tells the agent this is the place to look for attribution of past changes. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-use guidance and does not name alternatives.

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