github_gists_get_revision

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It simply states the operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data. Minimal transparency.

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?

Very concise, single sentence. No fluff, but could benefit from a brief note on usage. Structure is clean and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return value. It does not specify that the tool returns a gist revision object. Given the complexity of gist revisions, more detail is needed for completeness.

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%, baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain what 'sha' represents (e.g., the revision hash) or how it relates to the gist.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a gist revision', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'github_gists_get' (which retrieves the latest revision) by specifying 'revision'. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not elaborate on what a revision is.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_gists_get' or 'github_gists_get_comment'. The description fails to provide context for selection among sibling tools.

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