revisions_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining job is small. It adds one genuine behavioral detail not in the annotations: results are returned 'in document order'. It says nothing about cost, pagination semantics, or whether unaccepted revisions are included, but does not contradict the annotations.

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, dense sentence fragment that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned fields with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it reads as a bare fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose plus behavior.

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 read-only lister with a 100%-covered schema, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the return shape so the agent knows there is no output schema to consult. The missing piece is usage/routing context relative to the many sibling list/search tools.

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 100% – every parameter (doc, type, limit, author, cursor, stories) is already documented with a description in the schema, including pagination via cursor and the 8,000-byte cap. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (tracked changes/revisions) and describes the returned fields (author, date, type, text, paragraph address), which is clearly distinct from siblings like comments_list, diff, or compare. It never states the verb 'list' explicitly nor names an alternative, so it stops short of 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. must the document be open or unmodified?), and no routing to sibling tools such as history_list or comments_list. The agent must infer the use case purely from the tool name and the returned fields.

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