aism_revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false; the description's note that mutation is unavailable is consistent and reinforces them. It adds nothing about pagination of the revision list, ordering, or what a revision record contains.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read scope front-loaded and the mutation limit trailing. The second sentence is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic about what 'mutation' covers.

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 has 5 parameters including a free-form nested 'query' object and no output schema, so the description carries more burden than it does. It omits query argument behavior and return shape, though the read-only annotations and the explicit no-mutation note cover the main risk an agent faces.

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 description coverage is 40% across 5 parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It only hints at 'resource' values ('post/page') and implicitly at 'revision_id' for single fetches; it says nothing about the required 'id' pair, the 'site' selector, or how 'query' arguments (context, per_page, _fields) affect the result.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('post/page revision'), and clarifies the two modes (list vs. one revision). It does not name or differentiate itself from nearby siblings like aism_content_list or aism_content_get, which is the only gap.

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 sentence 'Revision mutation is unavailable' is a useful exclusion, telling the agent not to attempt writes here. However, there is no positive guidance on when to reach for this tool over aism_content_get or aism_content_list, leaving routing to inference.

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