Graph Revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only query and states how the value is consumed (base_revision for expiry detection). This is sufficient for a zero-parameter query tool.

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?

A single concise sentence conveys both the operation and the reason it is needed. No filler or redundant explanation.

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?

For a zero-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what the tool returns, how to use the result, and why it matters. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description mentions base_revision, but that is a field in a downstream request, not a parameter of this tool.

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 uses a specific verb (查询) and resource (当前图版本号), and explains the purpose: filling base_revision in write-intent requests for staleness detection. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_impact or query_context, which target different data.

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 gives clear context: call this to obtain base_revision before submitting an intent request. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended workflow is evident from the text.

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