wp_list_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists revisions and does not mention ordering, pagination, whether autosaves are included, or what fields the returned revisions contain. The word 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing beyond that is disclosed.

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 concise sentence that directly states what the tool does. It contains no filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name, and it front-loads the core operation and target resource.

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 is simple, with one required parameter, and the description covers the primary purpose. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the returned revision list looks like, whether it is sorted, or whether special cases like autosaves are included. These are clear but not critical gaps for a low-complexity list operation.

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 single parameter post_id is fully described in the schema as 'Post or page ID', and the description repeats this exact scoping. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('WordPress revisions for a post or page'), making it easy to identify. It also implicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like wp_get_revision, wp_get_revision_diff, and wp_restore_revision, which target a single revision or a different 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 the tool should be used when an agent needs all revisions for a given post or page, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative revision-related tools. An agent can infer the usage from the verb and resource, but there is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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