drive_list_revisions

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

The description discloses the coarse nature and the limitation for native Docs, but lacks details on pagination behavior, response format, authorization requirements, or ordering of revisions. Given no annotations, more transparency is needed for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. The structure efficiently conveys the essential purpose and a key limitation.

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?

For a simple list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a limitation. However, it omits details on pagination (page_token), return structure, and prerequisites, making it only moderately complete for an agent to use without further context.

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 75% with descriptions on most parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. The caveat about Docs is not directly parameter-related. Since coverage is below 80%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action (list), resource (coarse Drive revisions), and context (for a file visible to an account). It also adds a clarifying limitation about native Docs not showing full editor version history, which distinguishes it from potential alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The limitation statement provides a weak hint that for full revision history a different tool is needed, but there is no direct comparison to siblings like drive_get_file_metadata or drive_list_comments.

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