read_spec_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool reads markdown files, but does not disclose whether it returns raw content, whether it is read-only (should be obvious), what happens on missing paths or invalid paths, any access restrictions, or file size limits. The minimal description leaves the agent without key behavioral expectations beyond the basic action.

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 sentence of ~10 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no extraneous information, no repetition of schema details, and every word earns its place. Highly concise for the job it does.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It specifies that it reads markdown documentation files and hints at typical paths. It does not address error handling or output format, but given the low complexity and reliance on schema for parameters, the completeness is adequate. A small improvement would be to mention that it returns the file content.

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 schema's 'path' description includes a clear example ('e.g. config/constitution.md, examples/INDEX.md'). The description adds a few more examples ('config/, examples/, README.md, etc.') but does not significantly extend the meaning provided by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('markdown documentation file') and clarifies the scope ('in this spec repository'). It also lists example paths ('config/', 'examples/', 'README.md') which aids understanding. The sibling tools have distinct purposes (get team standards, get review gate, etc.), so this tool is clearly differentiated as the general file reader for spec documents.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs the sibling tools. While the sibling names suggest alternative use cases (standards, review gate, patterns), the description does not state when not to use this tool or direct users to a sibling for related tasks. Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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