octri_list_specs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the ordering ('newest first'); it says nothing about result limits, pagination, whether the list is filtered by anything else, or what each entry contains. Ordering is a genuine behavioral detail, but it is the only one.

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?

A single short clause, front-loaded with the resource and the ordering. It is efficient, though it reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement of behavior.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it omits return shape, pagination, and result limits for a listing tool. For a one-parameter read tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 100% and the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its fallback behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely (OpenAPI specs scoped to a project) and the ordering (newest first), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like octri_validate_spec, octri_push_spec, or octri_import_spec_url. It lacks an explicit verb (list/retrieve), relying on the tool name to supply it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer it over related spec tools, and no statement of prerequisites or the default-project fallback behavior. The agent must infer everything from the name and the sibling list.

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