get_project_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all revisions' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of objects with timestamps), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'revisions' are, what data they include, or the return format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interpret results or handle errors.

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%, with all parameters (project_id, limit, offset) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'revisions' entail or how parameters interact with them), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get all revisions') and resource ('of a WebSim project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_project_by_id' or 'list_all_projects' in terms of what 'revisions' specifically means versus general project data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_project_by_id' and 'list_all_projects' available, there's no indication of whether this is for version history, audit trails, or other revision-specific contexts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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