hedgedoc_get_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns JSON with note content and authorship data, which gives some insight into the output. However, it does not mention read-only status, error conditions, authentication requirements, or side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet list clarifying the two parameters, and a final line about the return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundant 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?

The tool has only two required parameters and an output schema is available. The description explains the purpose, parameters, and return type ('Returns JSON with the note content and authorship data'), which is sufficient for a simple read operation. It could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or when to use it relative to hedgedoc_read, but it covers the essentials.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: note_id is 'the note ID or alias (the slug from the URL)' and revision_id is 'the revision ID (Unix timestamp from hedgedoc_list_revisions)'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema fields and provides practical guidance on where to obtain the values.

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 the full content and authorship of a specific revision' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hedgedoc_list_revisions (which lists revisions) and hedgedoc_read (which likely gets current content) by focusing on a specific revision.

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 implies usage context by noting that revision_id is a Unix timestamp from hedgedoc_list_revisions, which cross-references a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus hedgedoc_read or hedgedoc_list_revisions, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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