getSpecFile

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare—no information about authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'contents' means (e.g., raw text, structured data). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core purpose. No fluff or redundant information is present.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., file format, error handling). With annotations covering safety, it meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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%, with both parameters ('specId' and 'filePath') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, expected formats, or examples beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('contents of an API specification's file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSpecFiles' (which likely lists files) or 'getSpecDefinition' (which might retrieve metadata), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific file retrieval tool.

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. With siblings like 'getSpecFiles' (likely listing files) and 'getSpecDefinition' (possibly getting metadata), the agent has no explicit direction on selecting this tool for retrieving file contents specifically. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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