paperclip_list_agent_config_revisions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds pagination details (max 50 per page) and specific error codes (401, 404) which are beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with a one-line summary. It efficiently covers Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling without unnecessary text.

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 list tool with pagination and 4 parameters, the description is complete: purpose, parameters, return format, usage examples, error handling, and cross-references to related siblings. No output schema needed.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds a concrete agentId example and mentions the pagination limit, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'List the config revision history for an agent.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool paperclip_rollback_agent_config by explicitly saying when not to use it.

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 'Examples' section explicitly provides when to use (auditing, finding revisionId) and when not to use (for rollback, use paperclip_rollback_agent_config). Error handling further guides on authentication and agent ID verification.

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