get_manual_revision

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the call is read-only, what happens when the id is unknown or the revision is retired, or whether the response includes content or just metadata.

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 short sentence with the action and key front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness reflects missing detail rather than disciplined density.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must at least sketch the return shape and error behavior for a fetch-by-id tool; it does neither. An agent can call it but cannot predict or interpret the result.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies the title 'Manual Id'. The phrase 'by id' loosely maps to manual_id but adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail, so it does little to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Fetch a single manual revision') and the lookup key ('by id'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from manual-adjacent siblings such as list_manual_history or retire_manual_revision, so sibling differentiation is left to the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_manual_history (which presumably lists the revisions) or any other manual tool. 'By id' implies the caller must already hold an id, but the description never states that prerequisite or any alternative.

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