wp_posts_get_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch' and 'read', which is self-evident from the tool name. It does not disclose the return format (e.g., a WP_Post object), error handling for non-existent revisions, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 only two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides the necessary workflow context. Every word earns its place, delivering key information efficiently.

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 two-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and the relationship to the listing tool. However, it omits the exact return value (e.g., whether it returns the full content or a post object) and any error behavior. The mention of 'content' hints at the return but lacks structural detail, making it adequate yet incomplete.

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 two required parameters (post_id, revision_id) but zero schema descriptions. The description says 'by id' but does not clarify which id is which or how the two parameters relate (e.g., post_id is the parent post, revision_id is the revision). It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, failing to compensate for the 0% 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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Fetch a single revision of a post by id.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool wp_posts_get_revisions by stating the workflow: list revisions first, then fetch a specific one. The mention of 'diffing or restoration' further clarifies the intended use.

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 explicitly references wp_posts_get_revisions as the tool to list revisions, saying 'Use wp_posts_get_revisions to list revisions, then this to read a specific one's content.' This provides a clear use case and workflow. However, it does not mention when to use alternative tools like wp_posts_restore_revision, nor any explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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