list_revisions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool lists revisions (read operation) but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or safe. It adds a behavioral detail about including manual revisions, but lacks notes on prerequisites or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool has one simple parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description explains the purpose and use cases adequately. It lacks details about path validation or document existence requirements, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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%. The only parameter is 'path', and the description does not explain its meaning or expected format. The parameter semantics rely entirely on the schema name, which is insufficient for effective use.

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 tool lists all existing revisions (including manual ones) and returns JSON. It provides specific use cases (post-editing self-check, reporting revisions). The verb 'list' and resource 'revisions' are clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which are editing operations.

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 gives explicit usage context: after editing to self-check or to report revisions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (all modification actions) makes it clear this is for reading revision history.

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