Get a spec file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as output format or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence: 'Gets the contents of an API specification's file.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundant words, and fully conveys the core purpose without any fluff. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema), and the annotations cover safety. The description clearly indicates the tool retrieves file contents, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., raw text, JSON) or any path conventions, which could be considered a minor gap. Given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 100%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema: specId ('The spec's ID.') and filePath ('The path to the file.'). The description itself does not elaborate on parameter meaning or usage, so it adds no extra value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 reflects that the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Gets the contents of an API specification's file.' It uses a specific verb (Gets) and a clear resource (contents of a file within an API spec), which distinguishes it from siblings like getSpecFiles (listing files) and getSpecDefinition (specific definition). This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a specific file's contents as opposed to listing files with getSpecFiles or retrieving the whole spec with getSpec. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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