directus_get_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only, it does not explicitly confirm this is non-destructive, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., 404 if revision not found) or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately brief but excessively minimal. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise rather than descriptive content. While no words are wasted, the extreme brevity leaves critical gaps in meaning.

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 zero schema descriptions, missing output schema, and no annotations, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain what constitutes a revision, how it relates to items/collections, or what the return structure contains.

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 0%—neither 'site' nor 'id' have descriptions. The description mentions 'ID' which loosely maps to the 'id' parameter, but fails to explain the 'site' parameter (which site? format?), and does not clarify that 'id' refers specifically to the revision ID.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('revision details'), and the 'by ID' phrasing distinguishes this from the sibling 'directus_list_revisions'. However, it does not define what a 'revision' represents in Directus (version history of content items), which would help differentiate from 'directus_get_version'.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this vs. listing revisions, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid site identifier). The description offers no selection criteria to help the agent choose this over alternatives.

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