cypress_list_specs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action and scope, and 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm absence of side effects, describe return format, or note behavior when the project is invalid. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but still leaves operational ambiguity.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and conveys the essential purpose immediately; every word contributes.

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 this is a low-complexity, two-parameter tool, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the return shape or error behavior, and the filter parameter's effect on 'all available' is left implicit.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating 'project' and generically 'all available'; it does not clarify how the optional filter affects results or what 'available' means in terms of discovery.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Cypress spec files') with a clear scope ('in a project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that run, stop, or check status of Cypress tests.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cypress_run_spec or cypress_run_all. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical invocation context; the only usage signal is implicit in the tool name.

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