wp_list_revisions

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination and the post/page scope, but does not disclose read-only behavior, ordering, what 'ref' identifies, authentication requirements, or the shape of the response. This is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded ('List revisions'), and the optional pagination behavior is stated compactly. This is an ideal size for the information it conveys.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the required ref parameter, the pagination semantics beyond the word 'pagination', or what the returned revision list looks like. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at the ref format.

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?

The description adds some semantic clues: 'post or page' maps to the post_type parameter and 'pagination' maps to page/per_page. However, schema coverage is only 50% and the required 'ref' parameter is left completely unexplained — the description never clarifies whether it expects an ID, slug, or something else. The partial compensation is insufficient for the required parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('revisions of a WordPress post or page'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_get_revision, wp_diff_revision, and wp_restore_revision by signaling a list operation rather than a single-item, diff, or restore operation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to retrieve multiple revisions for a post or page. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it, such as preferring wp_get_revision for a single revision or wp_restore_revision for reverting, so the routing burden falls entirely on the agent.

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