Api document revisions cascade info retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the word 'preview' and does not disclose what the cascade preview includes, what scope the id controls, or whether any dependent-object information is returned.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. A two-word fragment does not front-load any actionable information for the agent.

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?

There is no output schema, no parameter description, and no explanation of the return value or preview semantics. Given the low schema coverage and the agent's need to decide among many similar tools, the description is far too incomplete to support correct invocation.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says nothing about what 'id' identifies (e.g., a document revision) or how it affects the cascade preview.

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 is only 'Cascade preview:' and never names document revisions or explains what a cascade preview contains. It gestures at the cascade concept but does not state a specific verb/resource combination that would distinguish it from the many sibling cascade_info_retrieve tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives to prefer. The presence of many sibling tools named '*_cascade_info_retrieve' makes the lack of routing guidance especially costly.

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