wordpress_get_post_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the output looks like, error handling) and usage guidance, making it insufficient for effective tool 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 description implies the 'postId' parameter is used to specify the post for retrieving revisions, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides minimal compensation, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('all revisions/edit history for a post'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_get_post' (single post) or 'wordpress_get_posts' (multiple posts), though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid postId), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'wordpress_get_post' for current content versus revisions.

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