medeval_read_document_revision

Does 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 covered structurally. The description adds mild context ('immutable' confirms reads don't alter snapshots; 'bounded page' implies results are capped/paginated) but does not go much beyond the annotation baseline.

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, scannable sentence with zero filler. The core action ('Read a bounded page') is front-loaded, followed immediately by the object ('one immutable Markdown revision'). No redundancy with the schema.

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?

With 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the pagination boundary semantics and the current-vs-revision_id selection logic are left unexplained, so an agent cannot determine from the description how to read a non-current revision. The output schema covers return values, but the selection behavior gap remains.

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 description must compensate, yet it explains neither parameter's meaning. The critical ambiguity between the 'current' flag (default true) and revision_id (default '') — how an agent targets a specific non-current revision — is entirely unaddressed. 'Bounded page' only faintly hints at start_char/max_chars.

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 ('Read') with a precise resource ('one immutable Markdown revision') and a scope qualifier ('bounded page') that signals pagination. This is clearly differentiable from siblings like medeval_patch_document_revision (a writer) and medeval_diff_document_revisions (a comparator), though it stops short of naming them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus medeval_list_document_revisions or medeval_diff_document_revisions, nor any workflow context such as 'list revisions first, then read a specific one.' No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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