List specs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output (list of specs with symbols) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and providing usage context. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It only says 'list... and the source symbol,' leaving ambiguity about structure. For a tool intended as a first step, more detail on output would help.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'override the spec directory (relative to the project root)' adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter description. Thus, it does not improve semantic clarity.

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 what the tool does: it lists every entity spec and the source symbol it governs. It also differentiates from siblings (check_drift, explain_spec) by indicating this is a discovery tool to be called first.

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 says 'Call this first to see which types are spec-controlled,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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