vela_list_revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds only the use case and API endpoint, offering no additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or response contents.

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 consists of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information (purpose, use case, API mapping) with no 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 a simple read-only list operation with rich schema (83% coverage), an output schema, and safety annotations. The description adequately covers the core use case and API mapping; no critical missing information is evident for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 83% (above 80%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain parameters, but the schema already documents app_name, env, status, page, page_size, and response_format is a self-explanatory enum.

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's function with a specific verb ('查看' - view) and resource ('应用版本（revision）历史'). It also adds a use case ('可用于回滚前确认目标版本') and distinguishes from sibling tools like vela_list_deploy_records by focusing on revision history.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: '可用于回滚前确认目标版本' (can be used to confirm target version before rollback). This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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