extract_revisions

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

The description adds that the tool is read-only and does not modify the document, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). It also describes the output format and pagination behavior, providing helpful context beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences: first explains the core function, second adds pagination and read-only status. No wasted words and front-loads key information.

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 output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return format. Parameter details are fully covered in schema. It lacks specifics about error handling or file accessibility, but overall sufficient for selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions (offset default 0, limit default 50, max 500). The description only adds that pagination is supported, offering minimal extra value.

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 it extracts tracked changes as structured JSON with specific details (before/after text, revisions, comments) and supports pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_changes or has_tracked_changes.

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 mentions pagination support and read-only nature, which helps in understanding usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for retrieving revision data vs. accepting changes).

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