List customer recipe revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: revisions are immutable, no Compose content or secret values are returned, and applications:read is required. Lacks detail on pagination, ordering, or result size, which would matter for a list endpoint without an output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, then the return-content caveats, then the permission requirement. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (revision metadata) and what does not (Compose content, secrets) plus the auth scope. Not mentioning pagination or ordering is the only remaining gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (orderNo pattern/example, project_id UUID provenance) are fully documented in the schema. The description only references 'one customer-owned application recipe' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so 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) plus resource (immutable revision metadata) scoped to one customer-owned application recipe, which cleanly separates it from list_application_recipes (the parent recipes) and create_application_recipe_revision (mutation). An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 scope (revisions of ONE recipe, requiring orderNo + project_id) makes the invocation context clear, and the 'Requires applications:read' note gives a permission precondition. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as list_application_recipes or when-not to use it.

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