list_profile_revisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the history includes (changes, timestamps, source tool), which is useful. But it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, whether deleted revisions appear, or how limit and section affect results.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the value of the returned data. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose well. However, it omits key contextual details such as what section refers to, how revisions are ordered, and when to prefer this over the revision-related sibling tools. These gaps matter because there are no annotations to fill them.

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 needed to compensate for the limit and section parameters, but it does not mention either one. The schema provides names and defaults but no meaning; the description adds no parameter-level context beyond what an agent might infer from the names.

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 names a specific resource (profile revisions) and a clear action (list history), and it explains what the history contains: what changed, when, and via which tool. It is distinct enough from siblings like restore_profile_revision and diff_profile_revision, though it does not explicitly name them for contrast.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need a history of profile edits. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over diff_profile_revision or restore_profile_revision, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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