get_page_revisions

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the newest-first ordering and hints at entry content (source memories that triggered a re-distill), but says nothing about result volume or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded before the usage constraint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers purpose, ordering, and usage gating adequately. The only gap is how many revisions come back and whether the result is capped, which matters for a changelog tool.

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% and the single page_id parameter is documented there, including its own restatement of the newest-first ordering. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the version changelog for one page') plus the ordering guarantee, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It implies differentiation from get_memory_revisions via 'one page', but never names that sibling, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

'Use only when the user explicitly asks for a page's changelog, version history, or which source memories triggered a re-distill' gives a clear gating condition and enumerates the triggering phrasings. It does not name alternatives such as get_memory_revisions or page_basis, so no explicit when-not routing.

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