yaaif_agent_spec_revisions

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the data is 'immutable', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating list operation, nor does it mention pagination, limits, ordering, or authorization requirements. The description carries insufficient behavioral detail.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the returned fields. It is concise, though it could be better structured with explicit parameter context.

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 large sibling set, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the relationship to other spec tools, does not define spec_id, and lacks any indication of output format or call constraints. An agent would have difficulty selecting and invoking this 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify the purpose of spec_id. It does not; it never mentions that spec_id identifies the scenario whose revisions are to be listed. The parameter's meaning is entirely opaque.

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 states a clear verb (list) and a specific resource ('immutable Scenario releases') and enumerates the fields returned (SemVer, parent revision, content hash, change summary, author). It is more informative than the tool name alone and likely refers to listing revisions of a given agent spec, though the term 'Scenario' is ambiguous and could be confused with other spec-related tools like yaaif_agent_spec_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (e.g., yaaif_agent_spec_list, yaaif_agent_spec_get, yaaif_agent_spec_release_provenance_list). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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