spec_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration and hints at the returned content ('marks, actions, marks still proposed'), but says nothing about volume, ordering, or scope limits, and never explicitly confirms it is a safe read-only operation.

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?

One short fragment with no filler and the enumeration intent front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though it tips into terseness that costs clarity.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and gestures at the returned fields. It remains unclear what 'marks still proposed' means or how large the result set is, so an agent cannot fully predict the call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 fragment 'Every weapon spec' implies an enumeration of specs and contrasts with the sibling spec_read (single spec). However, the verb is never stated, and the trailing list 'marks, actions, marks still proposed' reads as jargon-obscured return content rather than a crisp statement of purpose.

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 and no reference to alternatives such as spec_read (single) or spec_validate/spec_write. An agent can only infer usage from the phrase 'Every weapon spec', which is weak routing guidance despite many sibling spec_* tools.

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