revisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Retrieves') but does not disclose return format, pagination, permission needs, error behavior, or any side effects. The minimal text leaves the agent with little insight beyond the implied safe read.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function in an easily scannable manner. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 and no annotations, so the description should explain what the revisions response looks like and when to use the tool. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without knowledge of the return value structure or typical use cases. The extreme brevity is insufficient for full understanding.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (objectUrl and clsInclude), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters interact or what 'class include' affects. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.

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 a clear action ('Retrieves') and resource ('revisions for an object'), which is more specific than a bare tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools or clarify what kind of object or revision is meant, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or references to sibling tools. The agent must infer appropriateness from the name and description alone.

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