memoire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses prerequisites ('Engine must have been initialized'), error behavior ('Returns an empty array [] if no specs exist yet — not an error'), and return format details. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, prerequisites, returns, error behavior, usage guidelines), front-loaded with core purpose, and every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains purpose, prerequisites, return format, error behavior, and usage scenarios relative to siblings, providing all needed context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage context and return values.

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's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('all specs saved in the current project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_spec (which fetches a specific spec) and create_spec (which creates new specs).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before create_spec (to check whether a spec already exists and would be overwritten), before generate_code (to confirm the target spec name), or to discover what components are defined in the project.' It also distinguishes from get_spec for fetching full bodies.

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