list_adom_revisions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the response shape (status, adom, count, revisions with version/name/desc/created_by/created_time/locked), which is genuine added context. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination/size limits, or permissions, so the behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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 effective, but the Args/Returns/Example docstring block partly restates the input schema and duplicates a return structure that the output schema already defines. It is not bloated, but several lines do not earn their place.

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-only list tool with an output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly: purpose, both parameters, and the revision entry fields. The missing piece is guidance on choosing it over the adjacent revision tools (get/diff/revert).

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 compensate, and it does: 'adom: ADOM name' and 'fields: Specific fields to return (optional, returns all if omitted)' clarify the meaning and the default behavior of the optional parameter. The only gap is that it does not enumerate the valid field names accepted by 'fields'.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'List the ADOM DB revision history for an ADOM,' which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as get_adom_revision, diff_adom_revision, or list_device_revisions, so an agent must infer which of these to reach for.

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 never says when to use this versus get_adom_revision, diff_adom_revision, revert_adom_revision, or list_policy_revisions. There is also no mention of preconditions, such as whether the ADOM must be locked or whether it must exist.

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