Get Revisions

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 that the response is a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and mentions the API version and endpoint. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 description is moderately concise with multiple sentences. It includes some redundant or slightly confusing phrasing (e.g., 'Returns an array of submittals' instead of 'revisions'), but overall is not overly verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears the burden of explaining return values. It states the response is a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which is adequate for a list endpoint. However, it does not describe the fields of a revision object.

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 coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions page and per_page for pagination, but does not add meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'Get the revision history of a submittal', clearly identifying the action and resource. However, it then says 'Returns an array of submittals', which contradicts the concept of revision history (should be revisions). This confusion reduces clarity.

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 includes 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Submittals by its identifier', providing some usage context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_submittals or show_submittal, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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