list_page_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the meaningful prerequisite (revisions must be enabled) and that pagination exists, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements or what happens on a page with revisions disabled.

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 purpose followed by compact Args and Returns blocks; every line maps to a parameter or the return shape. Slightly boilerplate-structured but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema (so return values need not be spelled out), the description covers selectors, pagination, and the enabling prerequisite. Missing only explicit sibling routing and permission context.

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 does document all four params. The note that 'id' is preferred when both selectors are supplied is genuinely valuable precedence information that the bare schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List page revisions') and adds a gating condition ('requires revisions to be enabled'). This distinguishes it from get_page_revision (single) and compare_page_revisions, though it never names those siblings 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?

The prerequisite that revisions must be enabled is useful context, and usage is implied by 'list'. However there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_page_revision or compare_page_revisions, so an agent must infer routing.

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