List Decisioning Asset Revisions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuinely non-obvious domain semantics: ordering is newest-first, only the newest revision is the working one and all others are locked, which directly informs downstream calls to lock_decisioning_asset_revision.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scope statement is front-loaded and the revision-state semantics follow immediately as the next most useful fact.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so the description need not explain return shape or safety. It is nearly complete for a listing tool, with only minor omissions such as whether results are paginated beyond limit and how this relates to the per-type revision siblings.

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%, including the enum for asset_type and a default of 20 for limit, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states (the asset-type list merely restates the enum), so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list revisions) and enumerates the four asset types it covers, which reads as the generic cross-type revision lister versus the type-specific siblings like list_business_ruleset_revisions and list_decision_flow_revisions. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the split.

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 implied usage only: you call it to see a revision history, ordered newest first. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the type-specific revision tools, and no prerequisites or exclusion cases are mentioned.

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