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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the listing action. Read-only behavior is only implied by the verb, and there is no mention of scope ('legacy' specs), pagination, or which pipeline stage the 'features' belong to.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero inputs the surface area is small. Still, the agent gets no signal on whether results are filtered, paginated, or scoped to legacy-only specs versus active ones, leaving a real gap in a crowded sibling set.

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 no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty argument schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('specs legadas e features do pipeline SDD'), so an agent knows this is a listing operation over SDD-pipeline specs and features. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling spec tools (validate_spec, spec-status, list_skills), so an agent cannot route confidently between them from the text alone.

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 when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the 15 sibling spec tools. The agent is left to infer that this is the enumeration entry point before inspection/validation tools.

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