read_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Reads' only implicitly conveys a non-destructive operation. It discloses nothing about error behavior for a missing folder, nor about pagination or return shape, which leaves real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that puts the verb and resource first and the file constraint second. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is adequate but thin: it does not state what the read returns, how a missing spec is signaled, or which sibling to prefer. An agent can call it, but not confidently.

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% and the single 'folder' parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that the folder argument scopes to a spec folder, adding marginal meaning over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reads') plus the resource ('content of an existing spec file') and constrains it with the file pattern (*-SPEC.md) and location (spec folder). It is distinct from sibling list_specs and generate_spec, though it never names them explicitly.

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 versus the siblings (list_specs, get_spec_template, generate_spec) or on what happens if the spec does not exist. The word 'existing' faintly implies a prerequisite, but nothing is spelled out.

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