Get Revisions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: project_id default behavior from procore_set_config, pagination controls (page/per_page) and reporting of remaining pages, a clear statement that it is read-only, and detailed error semantics (401/403/404). This gives the agent a full picture of what to expect.

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 moderately long but well-structured and front-loaded. It begins with the primary purpose, then usage, parameters, return type, read-only guarantee, error behavior, and API reference. Every sentence adds value, though the initial 'array of submittals' could be tightened to avoid minor inconsistency.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return type ('JSON array of revisions') and pagination behavior. It also covers required parameters, defaults, id resolution prerequisite, read-only nature, error statuses, and the exact API endpoint. This is comprehensive for a read-only list tool.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: project_id defaults to a config-set value, id must be an existing parent record (resolve via list tool), and page/per_page control pagination. This provides context not present in the schema, elevating the score to 4.

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 tool's function: 'Get the revision history of a submittal.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions that it returns revisions (though it initially says 'array of submittals,' the later clarification to 'JSON array of revisions' resolves this). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on revision history and mentions looking up an id for later use.

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 usage context: 'Use this to discover revisions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also gives a prerequisite by advising to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is actionable and covers when to use the tool.

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