list_revision_history

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 that audit entries are persistent and rollback availability is current-session, which adds context. However, it doesn't mention side effects, read-only nature, or what 'availability' entails beyond the schema.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a brief note on the parameter.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. But with no annotations and a single undocumented parameter, it leaves some gaps about why instance_id matters and what 'rollback availability' means practically. It's adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, and there is only one parameter with no description. The description does not explain what instance_id does, so it fails to add meaning. However, with only one optional parameter, the gap is less critical, but the description should at least hint at filtering by instance.

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 clearly states the tool lists persistent audit entries and rollback availability for FaceLink, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like rollback_to_revision by focusing on listing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It implies usage for auditing and checking rollback, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools suggest a broader ecosystem, but the description lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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