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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what the return contains (full spec components plus pending Inbox changes). This goes beyond simple read-only confirmation and gives the agent a clear picture of the data scope.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('ONE system's full spec') and then lists the included elements in parentheses. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only annotation, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. The mention of pending Inbox changes is an important contextual nuance. However, it doesn't clarify potential use cases or how to select between id/name/project_id, but those are partially covered in the schema. Overall complete for a retrieval tool.

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 67%, with id and name having brief descriptions ('Preferred', 'If no id') but project_id undocumented. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema carries most of the parameter burden, and coverage is moderate; a 3 is appropriate.

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+resource construction: 'ONE system's full spec' clearly indicates this tool retrieves a single system's specification. It enumerates concrete contents (Goal/Boundary/Acceptance, markdown, sources, status) and additionally lists pending Inbox changes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_systems or get_screen.

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 clearly sets context: it is for a single system's full spec, implying use when you need comprehensive system details including pending changes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'ONE system' qualifier differentiates from list_systems. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, hence not a 5.

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