List issue document revisions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, ordering, or response details. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and to the point, with only two sentences. It is not verbose and front-loads the main action.

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 description is minimal but provides the essential information given that an output schema exists. It does not explain the concept of revisions or when to use this tool, but it is sufficient for a basic GET operation. However, the lack of parameter descriptions reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions the URL pattern (issue id and document key) but does not explicitly describe what each parameter means. The agent may infer that 'id' is the issue ID and 'key' is the document key, but it is not explicit.

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 title and description clearly state the tool lists revisions of a specific issue document. The purpose is specific and distinguishes from siblings like pc_get_issues_by_id_documents (lists documents) and the create revision sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, when to list revisions vs when to get a single revision (if such tool exists) or when to create a revision. The description only states the HTTP method and auth class.

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