Revisionen vergleichen

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the function (compare and show differences) without disclosing whether it's read-only, what output format to expect, how errors are handled, or any side effects. For a compare operation, it doesn't confirm that no changes are made.

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 sentence with no wasted words, immediately leading with the verb. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core action. However, it lacks guidance on expected return value and usage context. Given the simplicity of the operation and complete schema documentation, it is minimally viable but could benefit from more 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (postId, postType, revisionId1, revisionId2) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'vergleicht' (compares) and clearly identifies the action as comparing two revisions and showing differences. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like revision_list (listing), revision_get (retrieving), revision_restore, revision_delete, and revision_cleanup.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer it over revision_list or revision_get.

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