Get a spec's files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'all files' scope, but does not disclose return shape, pagination, error behavior, or whether file contents are included. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

One short sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded, scannable, and every word contributes to understanding the operation.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficient to convey the core operation. It does not describe the output format, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

The single parameter specId is already documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does reinforce that 'spec' refers to an API specification, but adds no syntax, format, or lookup details beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('all the files in an API specification'), clearly distinguishing it from the singular getSpecFile and related getSpec/getSpecDefinition tools. The 'all the files' scope adds precision beyond just the tool name.

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 implies usage when a caller needs all files belonging to a spec, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like getSpecFile or state when not to use this tool. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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