list_decision_flow_revisions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the 'locked revisions' scope, but it makes a broad claim of 'all' without clarifying pagination or the limit default of 20, which is a behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. Every word contributes to the 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?

The tool is simple, safe, and backed by a complete schema and output schema, so the one-line description is mostly sufficient. The main remaining gap is that 'all' is not fully aligned with the limit parameter, and no pagination behavior is mentioned.

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 decision_id and limit already well-described in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so this is at the baseline.

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 'List all locked revisions of a decision flow' uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'locked revisions' qualifier distinguishes this from listing decision flows or getting a single revision. It is clear and unambiguous.

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 no explicit 'when to use' or alternative-tool guidance, such as 'use get_decision_flow_revision for a specific revision' or 'use lock_decision_flow_revision to create a locked revision.' The use case is only implied by the tool's name and phrasing.

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