revisions_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, limits, or any side effects. It also does not mention whether it requires a document identifier from context or how results are ordered.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. There is no waste or redundancy, earning a perfect score.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is extremely terse. It does not explain the structure of version history entries, pagination handling, or how the document is identified, making it inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no other context. The missing document identifier is a severe gap.

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 already describes all 5 parameters (sort, limit, offset, nextPath, direction) with brief descriptions, and the description adds no additional parameter context. However, a critical document identifier is absent from the schema, making it unclear how the document is specified. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate for the missing document reference.

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 'List version history of a document' clearly states the action (list) and resource (version history of a document), and it distinguishes from sibling revisions_info which likely fetches a single revision. However, it does not clarify which document is being referenced, leaving some ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like revisions_info or documents_list. It does not mention any prerequisites or context requirements, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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