List Decision Flow Revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that only locked revisions are returned, not all revisions. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape, but the annotations and output schema relieve some of that burden.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource while including the crucial 'locked' qualifier, making it maximally concise without losing meaning.

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 list operation, the description plus annotations and a fully documented input schema are sufficient. The output schema presumably describes the returned revisions, so the description does not need to explain return values. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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%, and both parameters (decision_id and limit) are already explained in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('locked revisions of a decision flow'), and the scope ('all'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_decision_flows, which lists decision flows, and get_decision_flow_revision, which gets a single revision.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to enumerate locked revisions of a decision flow. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this with get_decision_flow_revision, lock_decision_flow_revision, or list_decision_flows, so an agent must infer when this is the right tool versus an alternative.

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