List revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior: revisions are auto-captured on changes, returned newest first, and the sequence number is meant to be passed to repovive_restore_revision. No destructive side effects or surprising behaviors are suggested.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then providing capture semantics and the downstream restore tool. Every clause adds value and no redundant restatement of the title or schema exists.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a read-only listing tool with an output schema, but it does not explain behavior when target_id/target_kind are omitted, even though both are optional with null defaults. It also does not clarify the relationship to repovive_list_history, which is a likely source of confusion among siblings.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents target_id, target_kind, limit, and response_format. The description adds little parameter-level meaning; it refers to sequence numbers in the output rather than to any parameter, and it uses the informal term 'problem draft' where the schema says 'build_session.'

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'saved versions of an entity,' adds ordering ('newest first'), and links the returned sequence number to repovive_restore_revision. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling repovive_list_history, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives useful context about when revisions are available ('captured automatically whenever ... changed through this server') and which entity types are supported. It does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like repovive_list_history, repovive_get_revision, or repovive_diff_revisions.

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