List Visual Specs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about project-wide scope and hash details, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return format or potential limitations. This matches the expected level when annotations cover safety.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what output to expect (baselines and perceptual hash details). Annotations and empty schema complete the picture, so no additional context is needed.

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 schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently covered. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description gives sufficient context about what is being listed without needing parameter specifics.

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'), clearly identifies the resource ('all registered Visual Spec baselines across the project'), and adds a detail about output ('their perceptual hash details'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_visual_spec or verify_visual_spec.

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 makes the tool's enumerating purpose obvious, implying when to use it (to get an overview of all baselines). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_visual_diff for comparing specific specs.

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