list_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without revealing side effects, authentication needs, or the meaning of 'retained revisions'. Key behaviors such as read-only nature and response format are omitted.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It gets straight to the point, front-loading the 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 the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'retained revisions' means, how 'limit' affects results, or what the 'quiet' parameter does, leaving the agent unprepared.

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 50% (doc and account have descriptions, limit and quiet do not). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the behavior of the 'limit' or 'quiet' parameters, leaving gaps the schema already has.

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 'List retained revisions for a document' uses a specific verb ('list') and identifies the resource ('retained revisions') and scope ('for a document'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_document' and 'document_info' which serve different functions.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'read_document'), nor does it mention prerequisites or context in which this tool is appropriate.

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