get-revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, and the description does disclose the returned fields (title, timestamp, author, size, byte delta, edit comment), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid/missing revision ID, wiki defaulting, or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the return-value list is compact and informative. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and enumerates the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gap: nothing about the wiki defaulting behavior or failure modes.

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 100%, so both parameters (wiki, revision_id) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by ID' adds only a marginal restatement of the revision_id parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: get details for a single revision identified by ID. This is distinguishable from get-page-history (which lists revisions) and get-page, but the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the caller must already have a revision ID, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of get-page-history as the alternative for listing revisions, and no stated prerequisites.

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