get-revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: the tool returns different content types based on the 'content' parameter, and it errors on non-existent revision IDs. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 consists of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and return options. The second sentence provides an error condition and a cross-reference to a sibling tool. No unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description implicitly describes the return (wikitext source, rendered HTML, or metadata). It covers the error case and the alternative tool. For a read-only tool with good annotations, it is sufficiently complete to help an agent select and invoke it correctly.

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 four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the 'content' parameter (source, html, none) and mentions that the revisionId is required and its non-existence triggers an error. It also clarifies the purpose of the 'wiki' parameter by referencing the resource list.

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 returns a specific historical revision of a wiki page by revision ID, specifying the possible content types (wikitext source, rendered HTML, or metadata only). It distinguishes from the sibling tool get-page by noting that get-page returns the latest revision with metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use get-revision (to fetch a specific revision) and when to use get-page instead (for the latest revision with metadata). It also notes that an error is returned if the revision ID does not exist, which sets expectations.

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