openspec_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It mentions the JSON return behavior, but does not fully disclose whether it's read-only, what the default output format is, or any side effects. The behavioral information 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 concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds information about the tool's function and output. No wasted words.

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 sibling tools, the description lacks guidance on how this tool fits in the workflow. It doesn't clarify the difference between listing and showing, or mention any prerequisites or side effects. The tool is simple, but the context is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It implies the default is changes unless specs=true and mentions JSON array output, providing slight value beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 it lists items (changes or specs), identifying a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like openspec_show, but the 'list' verb is distinct enough to convey the basic 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openspec_show or openspec_status. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it 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.