list_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, but the description adequately discloses the behavior: it lists revisions newest first, is branch-scoped, and returns specific fields. It does not mention destructive actions or rate limits, but as a read-only list operation, the transparency is sufficient.

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 at three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and ordering, explaining scope and output, and providing an alternative tool. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, the ordering, the fields returned, the branch scoping, and pagination hints (via schema). No critical information is missing.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, it adds valuable context for the 'branch_id' parameter, explaining that omitting it uses the live branch and that branching may prompt selection. This extra guidance justifies a score above 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 clearly states the tool lists committed revisions on a branch, newest first, and specifies the returned fields (revision number, label, publisher, security status). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_revision' by directing users to use that for a single revision's config.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative 'get_revision', and explains branch scoping and the default live branch behavior. While not exhaustive, it offers clear context for appropriate usage.

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