Get a space revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint but provides no additional behavioral context such as potential pagination (though the body parameter hints at it via schema), locking behavior, or result completeness. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value.

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 sentence with the endpoint, which is very concise and front-loaded. Every word is relevant. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it achieves clarity in a minimal footprint.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., revision metadata, page list). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. The schema and annotations cover safety and input, but the output is unaddressed, making the tool incomplete for an agent.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema are complete (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description does not provide extra meaning beyond what the schema states, fulfilling the baseline. No additional details on parameter relationships or default values are given.

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 'Get a space revision' and includes the HTTP endpoint, indicating the specific resource and action. However, among siblings like gitbook_get_current_revision and gitbook_get_revision_of_change_request_by_id, the description does not differentiate which revision retrieval use case this serves, missing a chance to distinguish.

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 such as gitbook_get_current_revision or gitbook_get_revision_of_change_request_by_id. No context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or why one might choose it over siblings.

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