List Of Document Revisions (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds that it returns a sorted list of the 20 most recent revisions, paginated, with metadata. It discloses sorting and pagination behavior, which is valuable 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 well-structured, front-loaded with the main action, and provides necessary details in a logical order. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, though slightly verbose in some parts.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description adds pagination, sorting, and usage context, plus the API endpoint. It does not detail return fields, but 'JSON array of Documents' is sufficient given no output schema. Overall, it provides a complete picture for 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 mentions required parameters and pagination parameters, but there is a discrepancy: it says '20 most recent file versions' while the schema default for per_page is 100. This could confuse. However, it adds information about sorting and pagination metadata not in schema.

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 returns a list of the 20 most recent file revisions for a specific document in a project, sorted by created_at descending. It also specifies usage scenarios like enumeration and filtering. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_of_document_revisions_company', the project scope is inherent and the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using the tool for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters. This provides clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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