revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact return fields, the byte-size delta semantics, and that each revision links to its diff via Special:Diff/<revid>, implying a safe read. It omits pagination/limit behavior and rate-limit or auth context, which are minor for a read-only query.

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-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, then use cases and sibling contrast. Four sentences stay efficient, though the diff-link detail and use-case list could be trimmed slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does thoroughly (id, timestamp, editor, summary, delta, diff link). An agent gets enough to call it correctly; only pagination/limit semantics and ordering are left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents lang (with enum), limit (default and max), and title. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about parameter meaning or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Show an article's recent edit history') and enumerates exactly what it returns (revision id, timestamp, editor, edit summary, byte-size delta). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `pageviews` by contrasting provenance vs. popularity.

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?

Provides clear usage contexts (tracking article evolution, auditing edits, spotting current-event activity) and names `pageviews` as the complementary tool. However, it gives no when-not guidance and doesn't distinguish itself from plausible edit-oriented siblings like `recent_changes`, leaving the nearest alternative unaddressed.

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