confluence_get_content_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'Get v1 history details.' It does not explain pagination, expand behavior, content-type coverage, return shape, or any side effects/permissions. This is a significant gap for a read operation whose behavior is mostly unspecified.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it may be too terse to fully support effective tool selection.

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 tool with five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description only provides a narrow use-case hint. It leaves out pagination semantics, expand options, response structure, and relationship to sibling history/version tools, so the agent is under-equipped to call it correctly.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the five parameters. An agent cannot infer what 'expand', 'max_chars', 'limit', 'start', or even 'content_id' are used for beyond their raw types and defaults. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 names a specific operation ('Get v1 history details') and scopes it to generic Confluence content, which is clear and actionable. It distinguishes itself from the v2 page model by noting when v1 history shape is required, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling version/list tools.

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 phrase 'useful when the v2 page model does not expose the required history shape' gives a clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies an alternative (the v2 model), but it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name specific sibling alternatives.

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