directus_list_revisions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only, the description omits pagination behavior, return structure, or whether revisions include full content vs diffs. Critical gaps for a history/audit tool.

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?

Single sentence is efficient but contains metadata noise '[UNIFIED]'. Given 4 undocumented parameters and no output schema, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise—needs more content to earn higher marks.

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 4 parameters (0% documented), no annotations, no output schema, and a history-tracking use case, the one-line description is inadequate. Missing: what constitutes a revision, scope of history available, and how to interpret results.

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 has 0% description coverage for 4 parameters (site, filter, sort, limit). The description mentions 'items' but fails to explain that 'filter' likely expects item/collection filtering, what 'site' refers to, or that 'limit' defaults to 100. Minimal compensation for undocumented 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?

States the basic action (List) and resource (revisions/history of items), but includes noise token '[UNIFIED]' and fails to differentiate from sibling 'directus_get_revision' (singular) which also exists in the toolset.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this list operation versus the singular 'directus_get_revision', nor when to apply filters versus retrieving all revisions. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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