read-spec-file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It implies a non-destructive read operation, but does not disclose the return format (e.g., raw text, markdown) or any potential side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but lacks detail.

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?

Two concise sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and usage context. It slightly overlaps with sibling get-task-summary in 'see task status', but overall is adequate. Missing output details reduce completeness slightly.

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%, so the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. However, the single enum parameter 'file' is self-explanatory with values 'requirements.md', 'design.md', 'tasks.md'. The description could have briefly explained the purpose of each file, but it's not critical.

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 it reads the content of spec files and provides specific use cases (review requirements, check design decisions, see task status). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get-task-summary, which also relates to task status.

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 mentions when to use the tool (review requirements, check design decisions, see task status). It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like write-spec-file for modifications.

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