List Available Specs

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

While the readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation, the description adds behavioral nuance by explaining the published-status filter and its relation to snapshotting. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 and well-structured: two sentences and a short prerequisite note. It delivers the key purpose and an important constraint without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description fails to explain the role of documentationId and versionId in the context of listing specs, nor does it mention what the output looks like. The mismatch between the tool's purpose and its required inputs is a significant gap that could mislead the agent.

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 required parameters documentationId and versionId are only described as 'public Id', which does not clarify why a list operation needs a specific documentation and version. The description does not reconcile these inputs with the tool's stated purpose, leaving the agent uncertain about what to pass.

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 the tool lists the project's API specifications with their published status, and explicitly positions them as candidates for manage_spec_snapshot. This differentiates it from other list tools like list_specs by focusing on snapshot eligibility.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for use ('A spec without a published version cannot be snapshotted') and notes the prerequisite of project context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance implies when this tool is relevant.

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