getRevisions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does this reasonably well by indicating a read-only audit retrieval, the default one-day window, and the optional timestamp filter. It does not disclose pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for this simple getter.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently adds the filtering dimensions and default behavior. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary background.

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 core purpose and parameters are covered well, and the schema fills in the remaining parameter details. However, there is no output schema and no distinction from getEntityRevisions, leaving the agent without information about return shape and sibling selection.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the schema already provides most of the semantics. The description adds only minor context about 'resource type' and 'author's name' filtering, which mostly restates the schema descriptions.

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 the operation: getting all revisions/audit log entries for a resource type, filtered by author and optionally by timestamp. It is specific enough to understand the tool's main purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named sibling getEntityRevisions.

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 revision/audit history for a resource type, filtered by author and optionally by modified-after time. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer the similar getEntityRevisions sibling.

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