List image revision history in the workspace ledger, including lineage, recipe hash, dimensions, and sizes. Filter by asset ID to inspect a specific asset's versions.
List revisions in the workspace ledger (lineage, recipe hash, dimensions, sizes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | No | 指定した asset_id の revision だけに絞る。省略時は全件。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| revisions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it lists revisions and includes specific data fields, which is useful context but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination or ordering. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate; no contradiction exists.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes only essential information. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to clarity.
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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not explain domain-specific terms like 'workspace ledger', but that is likely implicit in the system context.
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% for the single parameter asset_id, which includes a clear description (filter by asset_id, omit for all). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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 states a specific action (List) and resource (revisions in the workspace ledger), and enumerates returned fields (lineage, recipe hash, dimensions, sizes). It distinguishes from siblings like list_operations by focusing on revisions. However, the tool name 'list_assets' suggests assets rather than revisions, creating slight ambiguity about what is being listed.
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, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone; there is no explicit 'use when...' or 'instead of...' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.