get_decision_flow_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It introduces the term 'locked' but does not explain whether the revision must be locked, what happens if it isn't, or whether permissions are required. No mention of error behavior or the format of the returned content leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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?

A single, concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words or repetition. The front-loaded verb and object make the purpose immediately clear.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple, and the schema covers parameters, but the output schema is not viewable here and no other contextual details are provided. The 'locked' qualification raises questions about preconditions that are never addressed. Given the absence of annotations and minimal description, the context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's constraints and behavior.

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%, with both decision_id and revision_id having clear descriptions, including a useful disambiguation for decision_id ('not its name — list_decision_flows returns both'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('content of a specific locked decision revision'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lock_decision_flow_revision and list_decision_flow_revisions. The phrase 'locked decision revision' adds a precise constraint that identifies the exact operation.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve content of a locked revision) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like list_decision_flow_revisions and get_decision_flow suggest related actions, but no direct comparison or guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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