getEntityRevisions

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: results are in descending order by time, only latest 100 revisions are retained (including CREATE and DELETE), admin page entities record only concrete updates, and authorizedHosts requires using client ID as entity ID. This goes well beyond a basic read operation description.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a compact bulleted NOTE section. Every sentence carries necessary information, and the structure is easy to scan for an agent.

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 two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, data retention, special entity behaviors, and ID mapping. It lacks mention of return format or error cases, but these are not critical given the simplicity of the tool and its clear audit-history intent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions that capture the same meaning (entity type and entity ID). The description reinforces the authorizedHosts client-ID rule already present in the schema but does not add substantial new parameter-level details beyond that. 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('all revisions/audit history'), and scope ('of a specific entity by ID, in descending order by time'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool getRevisions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getRevisions or other list/fetch tools. The NOTE section gives useful caveats and parameter hints, but it does not state any selection criteria, exclusions, or preferred scenarios for using this tool.

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