revisions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation, without mentioning read-only behavior, error handling, or side effects. For a retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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 single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It could be front-loaded with more detail. It is not verbose but fails to provide necessary context.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'revisions' includes, the response format, and any limitations. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value.

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 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'revisions for an object', which is clear. However, 'object' is somewhat vague; specifying the type of object (e.g., ABAP development object) would improve clarity.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., for version history vs. current source retrieval). Sibling tools exist but no guidance is given.

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