revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether authentication is required, rate limits, potential performance impacts, or side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, front-loading the key action. It is not verbose, but could benefit from additional context without sacrificing conciseness. The brevity is efficient but borderline under-specified.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what is returned (e.g., list of revision objects, metadata, pagination). With many sibling tools, more detail on the specific object types or use cases is needed to be complete.

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%, providing descriptions for both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'clsInclude'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 it retrieves revisions for an object, specifying the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'revisions'. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'getObjectSource' or 'nodeContents' which also retrieve data for objects. The nature of 'revisions' is somewhat ambiguous (e.g., version history, document changes), but the core action is clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many retrieval tools, but the description offers no context about scenarios where revisions are appropriate (e.g., comparing versions) or exclusions (e.g., not for current state).

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