nucleo-doc-revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by describing the shape of each returned row, the "+added ~changed -removed" summary notation, and the fact that document bodies are withheld unless withDocs is set. It stops short of noting ordering, pagination, or limits on revision history.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return structure and ending with the sibling redirect, with no filler. The parenthetical explanations are dense and the nested quoting around the change-summary notation makes it slightly harder to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does so thoroughly: per-revision fields, the meaning of the client field (agent id vs. empty string for people), the diff-summary notation, and the withDocs caveat. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description carries part of the burden, and it does clarify withDocs by stating the revision content is included only when that flag is set. postId is never explained in the description, but its meaning (the document whose revisions are listed) is unambiguous from context, so the gap is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List of a document's revisions") and then enumerates exactly what each revision contains: number, time, author, client, and a node-change summary. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the mutation sibling by naming nucleo/doc-rollback as the way to revert, so an agent can separate the two without inspecting 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?

It gives a clear routing rule for the most confusable sibling ("To go back to a revision, use nucleo/doc-rollback") and states the condition that changes output shape (content only with withDocs). It does not discuss when to prefer nucleo-doc-get or how revisions relate to preview/publish, but the primary alternative is handled explicitly.

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