Read spec file and page object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool auto-resolves imported page objects and provides complete deterministic context, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, whether it is strictly read-only, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Read,' and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, output, and usage priority without unnecessary filler.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context about what it does and why it matters. It names the return context (step flow, DSL calls, selectors) and its role in the workflow, though it could mention error handling or what happens if the file is missing.

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 100% for the single parameter specFilePath, which is already described as 'Absolute path to the spec file'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 reads a spec file and auto-resolves its imported page object, naming specific content (full step flow, helper DSL calls, selector definitions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_and_fix_selector by positioning this as the prerequisite step.

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 says to call this tool before analyze_and_fix_selector and instructs 'Never let the model guess about test intent; call this first,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the primary use case is unambiguous.

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