titan_list_specs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output content (classes, specs, roles, ids) but does not mention any limits (e.g., pagination), performance characteristics, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. The tool is simple and non-destructive by nature, but the description is minimal.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The first states what the tool provides, and the second gives a concrete usage scenario, making every sentence valuable.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what is returned (classes and specs with roles and ids) and when to use it (unknown spec names). No further context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not contradict this. It correctly implies that no input is needed.

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 identifies the resource (all supported classes and specs) and the data included (roles and ids), even without an explicit verb. It distinguishes from siblings like titan_get_spec_data (which targets a single spec) and titan_get_role_blueprint (which provides role blueprints) by being the comprehensive listing tool.

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 states a specific use case: 'Useful if the spec name is not recognized.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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