Revision Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing beyond the bare verb 'Get'. It does not state permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the entity_type is a free-form string, and there is no guidance on the ambiguous 'include' parameter's effect.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves parameter semantics, usage routing, and behavior entirely unaddressed.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description tangentially maps to entity_type and revision_id ('a specific revision of an entity') but says nothing about the meaning, format, or allowed values, and completely ignores the 'include' 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 (Get) plus resource and scope (a specific revision of an entity), which an agent can distinguish from a list-style sibling. However it makes no explicit differentiation from revision_list, revision_diff, or revision_revert, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

There is no indication of when to prefer this over revision_list or revision_diff, nor any prerequisites. The agent gets no routing guidance whatsoever.

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