get_previs_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' and 'immutable' hint at a safe, non-mutating operation, which is useful, but there is no disclosure of permissions required, what the returned evidence contains, error behavior, or whether the result is paginated or cached.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally sound. But the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, since the key resource term is left undefined.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin for a domain-specific read tool. An agent cannot confidently determine what 'inspection evidence' is or how to correctly supply the IDs from this description alone.

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 coverage is 0% for two required parameters. The description only implies that a project and a revision identify the target, without explaining formats, where to source IDs, or the relationship between project_id and revision_id. It does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a verb ('Read') and a resource ('immutable inspection evidence') scoped to a project revision, so the broad intent is clear. However, 'inspection evidence' is an undefined domain term, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_previs_review_notes, inspect_previs_scene, or list_previs_review_scenes. This is a vague purpose rather than a specific one.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. With many related read tools in the sibling list, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer usage entirely.

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