yaaif_agent_spec_untracked_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 adds meaningful context: objects are in observe/warn mode (not yet adopted) and the tool must 'never auto-create a Scenario,' which is a valuable side-effect guarantee for a listing operation. However, it does not describe what the inventory returns, how results are structured, or any filtering/pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the safety caution earns its place. Minor deductions for unexplained domain jargon ('Scenario' capitalized without definition) and the slightly vague 'Map selected objects explicitly' directive, but overall the size and structure are appropriate for a simple list tool.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid start: scope, workflow placement, and a safety constraint. It is incomplete, though, because it never explains what the agent will receive back, what 'observe/warn mode' means, or how the limit parameter affects the result — and with no annotations, nothing else fills those gaps.

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 adds nothing about the sole parameter 'limit.' The schema's numeric bounds (maximum 200, exclusiveMinimum 0) convey range but not meaning, and the description does not compensate by explaining that limit caps the number of returned untracked objects. For a low-coverage schema, the description was expected to carry the parameter semantics and did not.

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 and resource — 'inventory untracked catalog objects' — and narrows the scope with 'discovered in observe/warn mode,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_spec_list (tracked specs), agent_spec_adopt, and agent_spec_untracked_resolve. The differentiation is inferable rather than explicit, and the workflow hint 'before adoption' reinforces which stage this tool belongs to, but it never names a sibling.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: untracked catalog objects found in observe/warn mode. It also provides workflow guidance — map selected objects explicitly before adoption — and an explicit prohibition ('never auto-create a Scenario'). It does not, however, name the alternative tool to use for mapping/adoption, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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