list_rewrite_script_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that revisions are immutable and previews the returned fields (hashes, sizes, active revision), but never states that this is a read-only/non-destructive operation, nor does it mention pagination or any rate/permission considerations for a revision history that could be long.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and each clause (immutable, hashes, byte sizes, active revision) adds information. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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 100% with a single 'id' parameter documented as 'Script package id', so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('immutable revisions for a rewrite script package'), and enumerates what the listing contains (content hashes, byte sizes, active revision). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_rewrite_scripts and get_rewrite_script_package, though it never names those alternatives 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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never hints that this is the tool to consult before rollback_rewrite_script or to compare against get_rewrite_script_package, leaving the agent to infer the selection context from the name alone.

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