continuation_read_and_cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It states the read-and-delete actions and the deprecation status, which is central. However, it does not explain side effects of the deletion, error behavior, or why it's deprecated beyond staleness. Still, for a deprecated tool, the key disclosure (don't use it) is present.

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 sentence plus a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place: the action, the resource, the deprecation, and the alternative. Perfectly front-loaded and zero filler.

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 is deprecated, the only essential context is that it should not be used and what to use instead. The description provides both. No output schema is needed because the agent is directed away; for a deprecated tool this is fully 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description adds no parameter-specific value. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description gives no extra parameter context, but none is needed.

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 action ('Read continuation note from handoff location and delete it') with a specific resource and two operations. It also explicitly marks the tool as deprecated, which removes any ambiguity about its role. This distinguishes it from siblings like continuation_read_with_staleness.

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 parenthetical instruction 'deprecated - use continuation_read_with_staleness' explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the preferred alternative. This is the strongest possible usage guidance—an explicit exclusion and a direct pointer.

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