turingmind_list_spec_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by using 'List,' but does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or pagination. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and filters, and the second sentence provides actionable examples. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and gives usage tips for two filters. However, it lacks explanation of the required repo parameter, the output format, and any potential edge cases (e.g., empty list). It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for complex usage scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions three optional filters (stage, surface_type, level) and gives specific examples for stage=failed and surface_type=api_endpoint. However, it does not explain the repo parameter or the meaning of other enum values (e.g., level L0-L7, stage spec_defined). This provides partial but incomplete guidance.

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 SpecNodes for a repository, with optional filters. It includes specific use cases like stage=failed and surface_type=api_endpoint, which distinguish it from other tools that focus on analysis, edits, or auditing. The verb 'List' and resource 'SpecNodes' are explicit.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use specific filters: 'Use stage=failed to find nodes requiring repair' and 'Use surface_type=api_endpoint to build the Risk Posture Map.' This gives context for common scenarios, though it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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