signavio_get_model_revisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all revisions' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with pagination parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral nuances like how 'limit' and 'offset' function together, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 the schema fully documents parameters (modelId, limit, offset). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of revisions, which aligns with the schema but does not compensate for or enhance parameter understanding. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get all revisions of a model' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('revisions of a model'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_get_model' (which likely retrieves a single model) or 'signavio_search' (which might find models), leaving room for ambiguity in distinguishing its specific scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to similar tools like 'signavio_get_model' for retrieving a single model, or specify contexts where fetching revisions is appropriate, offering minimal usage direction.

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