list_pcb_revisions

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, and an output schema covers return values. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: revisions are immutable and results are ordered by creation time.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is also the source of the gaps in usage and parameter detail.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the safety and return-format burden is already covered. However, the description omits the sole parameter's semantics and any scoping/pagination behavior, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the schema does not document the sole 'project' parameter, and the description does not compensate. The meaning of 'project' (ID vs. name, format) is left entirely to inference.

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) and resource (revisions), adding distinguishing traits (immutable, creation order). It is clear against the singular sibling inspect_pcb_revision, though it does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. Given the crowded sibling set (inspect_pcb_revision, pcb_project_history), an agent gets no help deciding when to list revisions versus inspecting one or reading history.

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