Revision List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful constraint: only the current revision is enumerable over JSON:API rather than inventing a collection URL. However, it omits permission requirements, pagination behavior, and what is actually returned.

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 with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence is a useful caveat, though its 'reports that honestly' phrasing is somewhat meta and could be stated more plainly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with zero annotations, four undocumented parameters, and no usage routing, the definition leaves too much for an agent to infer before invoking the tool.

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% across 4 parameters. 'For an entity' loosely gestures at entity_type/entity_id, but page_limit and page_offset are never explained, and the description adds no format or expected-value detail over the bare schema.

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 and resource ('List revisions for an entity'), so an agent can identify the operation. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling revision_get/revision_diff/revision_revert tools, which would require an explicit 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?

No indication of when to use this versus the other revision_* siblings, nor any prerequisites about which entity types are supported. The only guidance is an implicit limitation about enumerability, not a when-to-use instruction.

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