phabricator_revision_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Search Differential revisions (code reviews)'. It does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what data is returned. Minimal disclosure.

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 a single 5-word sentence. It is concise but overly minimal, lacking structure or front-loading of key information. It is not wasteful but could be improved.

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 the complexity (many parameters, nested constraints, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, or effective usage of constraints, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meriting the baseline of 3.

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 'Search Differential revisions (code reviews)' clearly states the verb (search), resource (revisions), and context (code reviews). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like phabricator_revision_edit or phabricator_commit_search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include many other search tools (e.g., phabricator_commit_search, phabricator_diff_search), but the description offers no differentiation or situational advice.

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