Revisionen auflisten

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates that the tool lists revisions, without adding context about safety (read-only nature), permissions, ordering, pagination, or return format. This is a minimal disclosure barely exceeding the tool name.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and it earns its place by stating the core purpose without repetition.

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?

The description lacks essential return-value information. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot infer what a successful response looks like (e.g., an array of revisions, revision IDs, or metadata). It also does not mention pagination or any limits, leaving a significant gap for an unannotated read tool.

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 100%, so both postId and postType are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain how parameters affect the listing or how to use postType.

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 ('Listet alle Revisionen') and the specific resource ('eines Posts/einer Seite'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling revision tools like revision_compare, revision_restore, and revision_delete by focusing on the listing operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use this to view revision history' or 'for comparing revisions, use revision_compare'. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and action.

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