get_page_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the stand-out behavioral gate (revisions must be enabled). It does not say what happens when revisions are disabled (error vs empty), nor confirm the read-only nature or whether the snapshot is a point-in-time immutable view, leaving meaningful gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by tidy Args/Returns blocks; every line carries information. The Args lines largely mirror schema titles, so there is mild redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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 output schema exists, so 'Historical page snapshot' is sufficient for return values, and the description covers purpose, arguments, a prerequisite, and the return. The remaining gap is failure behavior when revisions are disabled, which is minor for this simple read tool.

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 and it partially does: 'revision_id' identifier, 'id' as page identifier preferred when both are supplied, and 'path' as a slash-separated page path. But it never resolves the oddity that revision_id is the only required field while id/path are described as selectors, so the interaction between the required and optional params stays ambiguous.

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 verb+resource ('Get a page revision'), which is clearly distinct from sibling list_page_revisions, compare_page_revisions, and get_page. The singular 'a page revision' plus the required revision_id makes the single-item fetch unambiguous, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite ('requires revisions to be enabled'), which is genuine when-to-use context. However, it never contrasts itself with list_page_revisions or compare_page_revisions, so the agent must infer when a single-revision fetch is preferred over the list/compare siblings.

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