revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds critical behavioral context: it clarifies the confusing 'version' field is actually the transport request, and that the 'revision' field is the version number used by compareRevisions. It also warns about long histories with many copies and the default limit of 20. This goes beyond annotations and is highly useful.

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 compact and information-dense, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then clarifies the critical naming caveat, and finishes with the limit/filter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, making it a model of concise, structured documentation.

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 8 parameters, complex semantics, and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: how to identify the object, what the default limit is, and clarifies the tricky version vs revision distinction. It doesn't detail the exact return format, but the clarification of the version field likely covers the most important part. Slight gap on whether the response includes any other metadata, but overall sufficient.

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?

All 8 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the meaning of the 'version' field in results, but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully covers parameter meaning.

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 that the tool lists version history with author, timestamp, and transport request, taking a name+objectType or objectUrl. It distinguishes from compareRevisions by clarifying the version vs revision terminology, which is a key differentiator. However, it does not name any sibling tools directly, so it is not a full 5.

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 explains when to use objectUrl vs objectName, notes the default limit of 20, and explains filtering parameters. It implicitly tells the agent to use compareRevisions for comparing versions, but does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like getObjectSource. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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