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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that revisions are 'retained' (not all revisions) and scoped to 'one line', which clarifies the tool's scope and nuance.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, scope, and purpose.

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 the simple one-parameter interface, presence of readOnly/destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, why it is used, and the scope, without needing to over-explain return values.

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% and the lineKey parameter is clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond echoing 'one line', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given that the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'retained revisions for one line', with a specific purpose: enabling selection of a prior revision for rollback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like config_diff (which diffs) and rollback_config (which rolls back).

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 when to use this tool ('so a prior revision can be selected for rollback'), which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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