nacos_list_config_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the specific OpenAPI endpoints (v1, v2, v3) and the paginated response fields, providing behavioral context beyond 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 concise and well-structured: a single-purpose opening sentence, a bullet list of endpoint mappings, and a final note on return content. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple read-only list operation, especially with detailed parameter schemas and strong annotations. It could be improved by noting usage distinctions from sibling tools, but it already covers the function, pagination, and return fields, making it complete for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 '查询配置历史版本列表' (query configuration history version list), identifying the verb (query) and resource (config history versions). It also specifies that it returns a paginated list with fields like id, opType, operator, and time, which distinguishes it from single-history retrieval 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 description implies use for retrieving a list of historical versions but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_config_history or get_config_previous, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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