revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('retrieves') without any details on permissions, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it fails to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding, though it lacks depth.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'revisions' entail (e.g., historical versions, timestamps, authors) or the return format, leaving the agent unprepared for usage. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is lacking for effective tool invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('objectUrl' and optional 'clsInclude'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'clsInclude' does or providing examples. However, since the schema adequately documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Retrieves revisions for an object' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'revisions' with minimal context. It specifies a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('revisions for an object'), but lacks detail on what 'revisions' means (e.g., version history, change logs) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'tracesList', making it vague and insufficiently distinct.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an object URL), exclusions, or related tools in the extensive sibling list (e.g., 'tracesList' for logs or 'objectStructure' for metadata), leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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