openspec_list_cross_service_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return source (frontmatter) but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, safe, or what happens if the changeId does not exist. For a read operation, a hint about idempotency or safety would be beneficial.

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 17-word sentence that states the purpose and return source without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns and where the data comes from. However, it could be improved by noting that it is a read-only operation, but given the simplicity, it is sufficient.

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 single parameter 'changeId' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's description. Per the rules, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 explicitly states the action (list), the resource (cross-service documents), and the context (for a change proposal, from proposal.md frontmatter). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like openspec_read_cross_service_doc (which reads a specific doc) and openspec_list_changes (which lists changes).

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 provides clear context (when used with a change proposal and where documents are defined), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools like openspec_read_cross_service_doc for reading a single document. However, the context is sufficient for an experienced user.

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