Get revisions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds meaningful behavior by disclosing the full output shape and the semantic distinction from Issue Manager markup issues, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the key framing ('Read-only document revision data') before the dense output shape. The output block is verbose but earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that information; only minor tightening would help.

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, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, listing both issues[] and documentRevisions[] with their fields. Combined with the get_issues disambiguation, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though the optional-field semantics (owner?, issue?) could be clearer.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and their constraints. The description adds marginal value by showing that issues[] carries guid/id that the 'issue' parameter references, but this is largely a restatement of the schema's own reference to issues[].

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+resource ('Read-only document revision data') and immediately scopes what a revision contains (revision issues and the layout revisions they contain). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling get_issues ('Revision issues are NOT Issue Manager markup issues'), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for what the tool returns and explicitly warns it is not get_issues, which is the most likely confusion. It does not, however, give explicit when-to-use conditions or contrast with other revision-adjacent siblings such as get_revision_changes, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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