revision_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' which is an important safety signal for an otherwise unannotated tool. It could add more about edge cases such as documents with no tracked changes, but the read-only flag covers the primary risk.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: purpose, alternative routing, and safety flag. Each sentence earns its place, and the most essential information 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?

For a simple read-only tool with only one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, and behavioral safety. The main gap is the unexplained 'file_path' parameter semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, and the description never explains what 'file_path' should refer to or what format is expected. The parameter name is somewhat self-descriptive, so this is not a total failure, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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, 'Summarize', names the resource ('tracked-change counts by author and type'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool revision_analytics by pointing out that word-level and per-section analytics belong there. This gives an agent a clear, scoped understanding of the tool's role.

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 states the exact condition for selecting an alternative: 'For word-level analytics and per-section concentration use revision_analytics.' This explicitly tells the agent which tool to invoke based on the granularity of the requested analysis, leaving little to inference.

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