get_adom_revision

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. 'Get ... metadata' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the field list previews the shape of the result, but there is no disclosure of error behavior for a missing revision, permission requirements, or what the 'locked' field implies for follow-up actions.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is compact, with no filler. The Returns section partly duplicates what the output schema already declares, which costs a little efficiency.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description supplies what is needed to call it correctly: the purpose, both parameter meanings, the upstream source of the revision value, and the result fields. Only edge-case behavior (revision not found, locked revisions) 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'adom' is identified as the ADOM name and 'revision' is tied explicitly to the `version` field returned by list_adom_revisions, which resolves the most likely agent confusion. It does not state the accepted integer format or range, keeping it short of a 5.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('one ADOM DB revision's metadata'), which cleanly separates it from list_adom_revisions, diff_adom_revision, and revert_adom_revision. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the naming conventions.

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 parenthetical 'the `version` field from list_adom_revisions' gives a concrete prerequisite and a chaining hint, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to choose this over diff_adom_revision or get_device_revision, nor any exclusions or failure conditions, so usage is only implied.

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