get-revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return data, indicating a read-only operation, but it does not describe error behavior (e.g., when the revision ID is invalid) or any other limitations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and lists the outputs efficiently. There is no waste or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately lists the return fields, which is essential since there is no output schema. It could mention behavior for missing revisions, but the coverage is acceptable for a basic get operation.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'by ID' but this is already captured in the schema's parameter description. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get') and resource ('specific revision by ID'), and lists the concrete return fields (page title, timestamp, author, size, byte delta, edit comment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle pages or lists of revisions.

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 indicates this tool is for retrieving a single revision identified by ID, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get-page-history or get-recent-changes, but the scope is evident from the phrasing.

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