nacos_get_config_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API endpoints and notes that it returns the complete config content, but does not discuss error behavior, auth needs, or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. The listing of three API versions adds some extra detail that may not be essential for an AI agent, but it is structured and not excessively long.

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?

With an output schema present and clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function and key parameter. It could mention prerequisites like the nid being valid, but the overall completeness is good for a simple read-only retrieval 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%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The description highlights nid as the key identifier, which aligns with the schema, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states that the tool queries a specific historical change record and returns the complete configuration content for a given nid. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nacos_list_config_history (which lists records) and nacos_get_config_previous (which likely retrieves a previous version).

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a nid and need the full content of that historical version. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use compared to similar tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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