nexus_get_collection_revision

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful runtime trait: it uses the v2 GraphQL API and does NOT consume the v1 REST rate-limit quota, plus it summarizes the returned fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the rate-limit note is valuable. The Returns block is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but it is compact and does not bloat the description.

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, annotations, and fully described schema together cover the necessary call details: required slug, optional revision/domain/adult flags, read-only safe behavior, and the rate-limit distinction. A brief explicit pointer to sibling tools would make it fully complete.

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-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for slug, revision, domain_name, and view_adult_content.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific collection revision') and scopes it to mod count, sizes, and status. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling nexus_get_collection by naming 'revision' as the target.

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 v2 GraphQL / rate-limit note implies a reason to prefer this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The choice between this and nexus_get_collection or the revision-upload sibling is left to inference.

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