List revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value with newest-first ordering, the empty-list conditions, and the 'right to edit the post' permission requirement. Missing only edge details like pagination or revision caps.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then return shape, then edge cases and prerequisites. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape ({revision_id, date, author}), the RFC 3339/site-time format of date, that author is a user id, and the empty-result conditions. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description restates the same meaning without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list stored revisions of one post or page) plus scope and ordering (newest first). It also distinguishes itself from wp_get_post by explaining that revision content comes from that sibling.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (right to edit the post) and the follow-up path (use wp_get_post with a revision_id to get content). It does not cover when-not-to-use or contrast against wp_list_posts, so not a full 5.

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