get_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details,' which implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, what the response format is, or any side effects. Crucially, it does not even confirm that no mutation occurs. This is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple 'get' operation. However, it is underspecified, which slightly lowers the score, though conciseness itself is strong.

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 two required parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know what 'revision' means, what details are returned, or any constraints. The description provides minimal context and is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the schema provides only types and titles, no descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning to 'revision' or 'project_id' – it does not explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they relate to the tool's function. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a specific verb (get) and resource (details for a single commit revision). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_history (list of revisions) or get_diff (changes between revisions), though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to recognize the intent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine from the description when to call this instead of get_history or get_provenance.

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