Get Entry Revision History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond that — results are capped at the last 10 edits — but says nothing about ordering, pagination of older revisions, or whether a missing/nonexistent entry errors or returns empty.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope caveat in parentheses; nothing is wasted and the key constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to be efficient overall, but it is well structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, a four-parameter tool with zero required parameters and two undocumented scoping parameters needs far more from the description, particularly around how workspace_id/project_number/use_test_db select the target entry.

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?

Only 50% of the four parameters carry schema descriptions, and the description explains none of them — it never even names entry_id. The undocumented use_test_db and project_number parameters, which appear to scope the lookup, are left entirely opaque, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve the revision history of an entry") and adds the scope caveat "last 10 edits", which is genuinely informative. It doesn't differentiate from siblings such as get_entry_by_id or get_recent_entries, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_entry_by_id for current state, restore_entry/update_entry for mutations), and no prerequisites. The revision-history framing implies a use case, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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