list_specs

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the specs are 'aprendidas y dereferenciadas en memoria' and that servers and versions are included, which is useful. It does not explain any potential limitations, whether it requires existing in-memory data, or what happens if no specs exist.

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?

Exactly one sentence with no filler. It includes the resource type, file extensions, the in-memory state, and the return components in a compact, front-loaded way.

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 simple parameterless listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the entities, their formats, their state, and the included properties. Minor gaps such as the exact response envelope or error behavior exist, but they are not critical for this simple operation.

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 has very little burden here. The schema already covers all parameters. The description's mention of servers and versions gives a hint about the result shape, but no parameter semantics are 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 immediately states the verb ('Lista'), the resource ('todas las especificaciones OpenAPI/Swagger'), and the scope ('aprendidas y dereferenciadas en memoria'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like get_schema_doc and get_endpoint_doc by being a list operation.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools, such as get_schema_doc or get_endpoint_doc. An agent must infer that this is the right choice for enumerating available specs.

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