Get page revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the required access level ('editor+ on its space') and the trashed-page behavior. It could still note output format or whether historical bodies can differ structurally, but for a read tool this is solid added value.

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 dense sentences: the first defines the return payload and access requirement, the second gives the input source and the sibling alternative. No filler, and the payload definition is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still names the key fields. With annotations, schema, and an output schema in place, the description covers the remaining gaps (access level, trashed pages, sibling routing) without redundancy.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema itself ('page the revision belongs to', 'revision id from list_page_revisions'). The description reinforces the revision_id provenance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('One historical revision of a page') and enumerates exactly what's returned: title, full markdown body, and properties as they were at that point. It distinguishes itself from get_page ('For the page as it is now use get_page') and from list_page_revisions ('Take revision_id from list_page_revisions').

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: it tells you where to get the input (revision_id from list_page_revisions) and names the alternative for the live page (get_page). It also adds the non-obvious condition that it works for trashed pages.

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