flat_list_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the returned fields (id, date, description), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, pagination, or permission requirements, leaving key behavioral traits unstated.

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 that front-loads the resource and then the return fields. It is efficient with no filler, though the trailing undoing hint adds ambiguity rather than value.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers the return shape, which partially compensates. But it omits the meaning of the required score_id and any behavioral context, leaving the definition only marginally adequate for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter score_id is completely undocumented. The description implies the history belongs to some entity but never identifies score_id or explains what it must be, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the bare schema property name.

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 names a concrete resource (revision history) and enumerates what each entry contains (id, date, description), so an agent can tell this is a read of revision records rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like flat_restore_revision or flat_upload_revision, but the resource is specific enough to distinguish it.

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 only usage hint is "útil para desfazer edições" (useful for undoing edits), which describes a downstream goal rather than when to call this tool versus flat_restore_revision. There is no statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling performs the actual undo.

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