Get Doc Page Revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it is a read-only preview of a revision before restoration, and it requires project context to be active. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, why to use it, and how to obtain the required revisionId. The most important 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 single-revision fetch, the description covers the return content, the workflow purpose, the source of the revisionId, and the project-context prerequisite. No critical information is missing.

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%, so the schema already explains each GUID parameter. The description adds one useful pointer — 'Get revisionId from list_doc_page_revisions' — but does not need to do more because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get one revision's full title and content'. It also frames the tool as 'the preview before restoring', which distinguishes it from generic doc-page getters and clarifies its role in the revision workflow.

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 concrete usage guidance: use it before restore_revision, get the revisionId from list_doc_page_revisions, and ensure project context is set. This tells an agent exactly when and how to invoke the tool in the surrounding workflow.

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