get-revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so no contradiction. The description adds value by specifying the returned content types (source, html, metadata only) and the error case when revision ID does not exist. It does not describe the full response structure, but the behavioral traits are adequately disclosed.

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 with three sentences, front-loading the main action and options. Every sentence adds value: purpose, error behavior, and alternative tool. No redundant or verbose content.

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 description covers the main functionality (get revision, content types, error handling) and includes a pointer to an alternative for latest revisions. However, without an output schema, it does not fully describe the return format (e.g., what fields are present for each content type). It mentions metadata fields but not the full response structure, leaving some gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions revision ID and content type but does not elaborate on the meaning or constraints of the parameters.

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 explicitly states it returns a specific historical revision of a wiki page by revision ID, and clarifies it can return wikitext source, rendered HTML, or metadata only. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get-page by noting that get-page with metadata=true is for the latest revision plus metadata, making the purpose unique and clear.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: for retrieving a specific historical revision by ID. It explicitly gives an alternative: 'For the latest revision plus metadata, use get-page with metadata=true.' This helps the agent choose the correct tool.

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