get_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Download the content' but does not clarify the output format (e.g., binary, base64, or inline text), size limits, authentication needs, or whether the download is streamed. This is minimal behavioral context for an agent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core 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?

Given the simple tool with two params and existing sibling tools (like list_revisions), the description partially covers usage but omits key context like the need to obtain revision_id from list_revisions first. The presence of an output schema (unseen) may reduce the burden, but without details, completeness is moderate.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (file_id and revision_id). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra guidance (e.g., where to find revision_id) is provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'Download' and clearly identifies the resource as 'content of a specific file revision'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_revisions' (metadata) and 'read_file' (current version).

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 implies when to use (when needing revision content) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites. It does not mention calling 'list_revisions' first to obtain a revision_id, nor does it address alternatives such as using 'read_file' for the current version.

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