revision_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' documents how footnote/endnote revisions are categorized, and specifies the inclusion of the 10 heaviest body paragraphs by revision churn. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare operation name.

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 dense, information-rich paragraph with no filler or redundant phrases. Every clause adds either a metric, a scoping detail, or a behavioral qualifier, and the most important outcome—per-author analytics—is front-loaded.

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-value documentation is already covered. The description contributes the input context, metric breakdown, footnote/endnote aggregation rule, and read-only nature. It would be more complete with an explicit note about when to prefer this over revision_summary or get_tracked_changes, but it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 has only a bare file_path string with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter's meaning, expected format, or constraints. While file_path is a relatively self-evident name, the description adds no semantic value for this parameter.

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 identifies a specific analytical deliverable—tracked-change analytics per author—and enumerates concrete metrics such as insertion/deletion counts, word additions/removals, move/format change counts, and heading-path breakdowns. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tracked_changes and revision_summary without requiring the agent to open their schemas.

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 use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs aggregated per-author churn analytics rather than raw tracked-change lists. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, nor any named alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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