wp_pages_get_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only conveys that the operation is a read ('fetch'), but discloses nothing about behavior on missing revisions, potential errors, authentication requirements, or return format. This is minimal and does not go beyond the obvious semantics of the verb.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, though it may be under-specified, that is captured in other dimensions.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters and no output schema. It does not clarify what a 'revision' is, how revision_id relates to page_id, or what the response contains. It also lacks any context relative to sibling tools (e.g., wp_pages_get_revisions), leaving the user uncertain about the tool's exact role.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. The phrase 'by id' is singular and ambiguous, failing to mention that two ids (page_id and revision_id) are required. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters or their meaning beyond the names in the schema.

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: fetch a single revision of a page by id. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'revision of a page' are specific, and the singular 'a single revision' distinguishes it from the sibling wp_pages_get_revisions (plural). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from wp_posts_get_revision, though the 'page' qualifier implies the difference.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention wp_pages_get_revisions (for fetching all revisions) or wp_pages_restore_revision, nor does it explain under what circumstances one would need a single revision. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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