list_submission_revisions

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the operation as listing (read-only) but does not mention pagination details, ordering, potential errors, or any side effects. The page parameter hints at pagination but lacks specifics like default page size.

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 very concise with a single sentence and a bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant text. However, the brevity results in missing essential details, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema but the description does not describe what each revision contains, nor does it mention ordering, filtering, or relationships to other tools. The pagination is mentioned but not fully detailed. The description feels incomplete for a list 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 should compensate. It provides minimal explanations for the two parameters ('identifier of the Submission' and 'optional page number for pagination') but does not clarify how to obtain the submission_id, the default page value, or the maximum page size. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists revision history of a submission, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_submission (current state) or list_submissions (list all submissions). However, lacks detail on what constitutes a revision.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on typical use cases. The description merely states the action without any usage direction.

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