yaaif_agent_spec_list

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 only states it lists scenarios, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, default limits, response format, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves critical behavioral details unspecified.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but is perhaps too terse given the lack of other context.

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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain parameter semantics, response shape, or usage context. The agent would need to rely on the schema alone, which is insufficient given 0% description coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (q, limit, status) or their meanings. The agent has no indication of how to use these parameters for filtering or pagination, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Scenarios (Agent Specs)'), and a scope ('for the active tenant'). It clearly distinguishes from related list tools like yaaif_agent_list (which lists agents) and yaaif_skill_list (which lists skills) by specifying 'Agent 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of the parameters (q, limit, status) or typical use cases. It does not clarify what scenarios are or how they relate to other agent spec operations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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