docx_list_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' indicating no destructive behavior, and mentions the output includes previews and hashes, adding some behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key behavioral hint 'Read-only'. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return type (tracked-change nodes with previews and hashes), which is sufficient for a simple listing tool. However, it lacks details on error behaviors or performance implications.

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 description does not explain the parameters (docx_path and max_preview) beyond their schema definitions. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only hints at max_preview by mentioning 'previews', leaving the required docx_path unexplained.

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 specifies that the tool lists tracked-change nodes, providing previews and hashes. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other document elements like paragraphs, tables, or comments.

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 states 'Read-only,' implying safe usage without side effects, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as docx_assess_patchset, for revision analysis.

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