openspec_list_specs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention ordering, pagination, filtering capabilities, or whether the listing is limited to active specs. The minimal description fails to inform the agent of important behavioral traits.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters. Every word is functional.

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?

While the tool is simple and has no parameters, the description omits any indication of the return format or scope (e.g., across all projects). Given the presence of many sibling list tools, the description could hint at what constitutes a 'specification' to avoid confusion. However, it is minimally 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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no undefined parameters). The description adds no param info because none is needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description sufficiently implies the tool takes no input.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'specifications', indicating the tool returns a list of all specs. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like openspec_list_changes or openspec_list_reviews, leaving ambiguity about what a 'specification' is in context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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