Read Implementation Spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns full spec content and extracted acceptance criteria, and that access is restricted to handed-off specs. This is useful, though it stops short of describing error behavior or permission requirements.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, return value, and access restriction. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every phrase 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 (one parameter, no output schema, read-only nature), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the condition for use—all essential information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including the 'must be handed-off' constraint. The description adds no significant new semantics beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: reading a specification that has been handed off to the implementation team. It distinguishes this from the sibling cleanroom_spec_read by emphasizing the 'handed-off' scope and by noting it returns acceptance criteria alongside the full spec content.

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 states that only handed-off specs are accessible, which gives clear context on when this tool applies. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., cleanroom_spec_read) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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