medeval_list_document_revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'immutable' as extra context about the revisions, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose any edge cases (e.g., behavior when document not found, pagination, or ordering). Since annotations already carry the main behavioral load, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, tightly-worded sentence that leads with the action and resource, with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the description is 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?

This is a simple list operation with only two common parameters. An output schema exists to define the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain that. The description covers the core purpose and scope, making it sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor omissions like ordering or error handling are not critical given the simplicity.

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 0%, so the tool description must compensate for parameter explanation. It doesn't explicitly describe document_id or workspace_id, but the phrase 'for one document' implicitly maps to document_id, and workspace_id is a common contextual parameter across siblings. The parameter names are self-explanatory, so this is minimally sufficient, though it doesn't fully elaborate on workspace_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('immutable revisions and the current head') and scope ('for one document'). It precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like medeval_read_document_revision (read a specific revision) and medeval_diff_document_revisions (compare revisions), so an agent can immediately understand its function.

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 clear context that this tool lists revision history for a single document, which implicitly tells an agent when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the scope constraint ('for one document') is a useful boundary.

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