List content revisions

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

No contradiction: 'List' matches readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. However, the description adds only a use-case rationale ('recover a previous version if an edit went wrong'), not new behavioral detail such as pagination, ordering, or revision content shape — which the annotations already largely cover for safety.

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 focused sentence with the action front-loaded ('List the stored revisions of a piece of content') and the purpose appended. No wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

Complete enough for a read-only list tool: annotations carry the safety profile, the schema documents parameters, and the description covers purpose and typical use. The only gap is that it doesn't hint at what a revision record contains (given no output schema), but that's a minor shortfall for a listing operation.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage (id, type, site_id, per_page with defaults and bounds), so the description need not add parameter detail. It contributes nothing beyond the schema, which is fine given the coverage; 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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stored revisions of a piece of content'), followed by the rationale (see what changed, recover from a bad edit). The verb clearly separates it from siblings like restore_revision (which restores) and get_content (current state).

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 implies when to use it — inspecting change history or deciding on recovery after a bad edit — but never explicitly contrasts it with the restore_revision sibling (which is the actual recovery action) or states when not to use it. The 'recover a previous version' phrasing hints at a follow-up without clarifying this tool only lists.

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