garant_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses that cache is not used, period adjacency is counted by dates, boundaries are read inclusively, live-base behavior is unverified, and gaps between periods do not imply the norm was inactive. It also points to the `_предупреждение` key for additional warning branches.

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 text is very long and includes meta-commentary such as 'Перечислить их здесь не устаревая описание не может' and a philosophical aside about where the description ends and the record continues. While the caveats are relevant, the presentation is rambling and harder to scan than necessary.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers statuses, period semantics, multiple periods, null periods, warning keys, and monitoring logic. It falls short only by not documenting doc_id and not routing the agent to garant_revision_on_date, but these are secondary to the extensive behavioral detail.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, doc_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never explains what doc_id should be, its format, or how to obtain it, only referring to 'документа' generically. Low coverage means the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 opening sentence 'Список редакций документа и изменяющих актов' clearly states the tool's deliverable and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like garant_document or garant_article by its focus on revisions and amending acts, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 final paragraph provides an explicit monitoring use case: if the current revision is newer than the revision in which a norm was cited, the citation should be rechecked. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not contrast it with garant_revision_on_date or state exclusions.

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