wp_get_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose what exactly is returned (raw post content, metadata, or wrapped object), whether it can error on missing revisions, or that it is non-mutating. It adds no behavioral detail beyond what the tool's name already suggests.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words; every word contributes to the core operation. It is not verbose, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool, the core purpose is clear and the schema covers the required argument. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the agent is left guessing about the return shape, error behavior, and any caveats. It is minimally adequate for selecting the tool but not for fully understanding its contract.

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 schema lists only revision_id with a type but no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The phrase 'by revision ID' simply restates the parameter name and adds no meaning about valid formats, how to locate a revision ID, or how the ID maps to a specific revision. With no parameter descriptions, the tool description needed to compensate and did not.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('revision content') and identifies the lookup key ('by revision ID'). Among siblings like wp_list_revisions, wp_get_revision_diff, and wp_restore_revision, 'content' distinguishes this as full-content retrieval rather than listing, diffing, or restoring. It does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives, but the combination of verb and resource is specific enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus wp_list_revisions or wp_get_revision_diff, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is for fetching a single revision's content once an ID is known, but there is no context about how to obtain that ID or why this tool is preferable to the diff tool.

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