yaaif_agent_spec_revision_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description mentions 'immutable' releases, implying a read-only comparison, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it describe the output format or behavior on mismatch. Critical details about whether this is a safe read operation are missing.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('Compare'), the object ('two immutable Scenario releases'), and the scope ('at the identity, segment, requirement, and slot level'), efficiently conveying the core purpose.

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 complexity of comparing at four distinct levels, the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what kind of differences will be reported, how to interpret the results, or any prerequisites (e.g., both revisions must exist). An agent would struggle to correctly use this tool without more context.

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%, and the description does not explain what spec_id, from_revision, or to_revision mean beyond implying a 'from' and 'to' comparison. The description references 'two ... releases' but does not map them to the parameters, leaving the agent to guess which revision is which and what spec_id refers to.

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 compares two immutable Scenario releases at the identity, segment, requirement, and slot level. It also positions the tool relative to downstream actions ('before restoring or promoting'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like revision_restore and release_candidate_promote.

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 states the comparison is done 'before restoring or promoting a change,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g., yaaif_agent_spec_revision_restore) or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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