get_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain what information is returned, any side effects, or the response shape, which leaves the actual behavior largely unspecified.

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 one short, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded. The brevity is a completeness concern rather than a structure problem, so conciseness gets a strong score.

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?

This is a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description does not clarify the return payload or the precise distinction from other commit-related tools. An agent can identify what the tool nominally does, but not enough to use it confidently in a complex context.

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 description must provide meaning for the parameters, but it only hints that `revision` is a commit revision. It gives no format, accepted values, or clarification about how `project_id` relates to the revision lookup, leaving the parameters only barely understandable.

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 (Get) and a specific resource (a single commit revision), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It doesn't state what fields the details include or contrast it with get_diff/get_history/get_file_patch, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_diff or get_history. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name what situation calls for this tool versus its many siblings.

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