get_vehicle_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the revision is immutable, canonical, and singular, which is valuable context beyond the operation name. It does not mention behavior for missing revisions or authentication, but for a simple read-by-revision getter the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and includes meaningful qualifiers ('exact,' 'immutable,' 'canonical') that clarify behavior without adding length.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with two scalar required parameters and an output schema present, so the definition does not need to explain return shape. The description adequately captures the core semantics of retrieving a single canonical immutable revision. It would be slightly stronger with explicit guidance on how to know the revision_number or what happens if the revision does not exist.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only elaborates 'revision number' and does not explain that the vehicle is identified by 'vin' or clarify the exact expected semantics of revision_number (e.g., uniqueness, ordering, or range). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the exact resource ('canonical revision for a vehicle'), and adds the qualifiers 'one exact immutable,' which clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_vehicle_history or list_vehicles. An agent can understand the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 the tool should be used when the caller has a specific revision_number and needs the exact canonical revision, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools such as get_vehicle_history or when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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