wordpress_get_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a revision and returns 'Revision details with content,' but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, any authorization requirements, or error behaviors. The output schema provides return structure, but the description adds little beyond intent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a compact args and returns summary. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to scan. Slight redundancy in the arg definitions, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two integer params, read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs. alternatives) and does not mention any potential pitfalls, such as revision deletion or access restrictions. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 description must compensate. It lists 'post_id: Post ID' and 'revision_id: Revision ID,' which merely restates the parameter names with generic labels. No additional semantics are provided (e.g., how to find revision IDs, constraints, or relationships between parameters). The value added over the schema is minimal.

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 ('Get a specific revision') and the resource ('a WordPress post'), which distinguishes it from siblings like wordpress_list_revisions (listing) and wordpress_get_post (getting the post itself). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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. While the name implies it is for a single revision, the description does not explicitly mention that get_post is for the current post or that list_revisions is for enumerating revisions. Users must infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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