List page revisions

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

Annotations already declare read-only/no-destructive, and the description adds substantial beyond-that context: when revisions are snapshotted (every title/body change, by a person, agent, sync or Atlas), that it works on trashed pages, and how paging works. It also discloses the response shape including revisions being metadata-only.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by scope, snapshot behavior, trash support, paging, and the alternative tool. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values yet chooses to characterize them (page with deleted_at/current_revision_id; revisions metadata fields). Combined with permissions, snapshot timing, and trash behavior, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents limit and cursor. The description nonetheless clarifies cursor semantics in context ('Page back with cursor = next_cursor'), adding modest value beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'A page's revision history, newest first', and immediately distinguishes itself from get_page_revision by noting that sibling only reads one revision's full text. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

States the access requirement ('editor+ on its space'), an explicit alternative for full revision text ('Read one revision's full text with get_page_revision'), and a concrete motivating case ('Works for trashed pages too, so you can recover what a removed page said'). When-to-use and the alternative path are both spelled out.

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