xenmark_list_revisions

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint: 'Files themselves are never available,' which stops an agent from expecting downloadable content. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence: the resource comes first, then the returned fields, then the availability caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the field list is dense and would benefit from being deferred to an output schema.

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, enumerating the returned fields in the description is valuable and compensates well. The availability caveat covers the main agent trap. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and what distinguishes a revision, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (drawing_id, cursor) are documented there, including the opaque cursor contract. The description adds only the implicit notion that revisions are scoped to a single drawing, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the specific resource and scope: revisions belonging to one drawing, and enumerates the fields each revision carries. This distinguishes it from xenmark_list_drawings and xenmark_list_comments, though it never names those siblings explicitly. A clear verb+resource pairing without sibling routing.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never references an alternative such as xenmark_find_drawing or xenmark_list_drawings. The need for a drawing_id implies the tool is scoped to an already-known drawing, but that is inference, not stated guidance.

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