Read File (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it reads the file 'as text' and supports partial reading via head/tail parameters. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits details about output format or size limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately followed by the deprecation notice. No wasted words.

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 and has a recommended replacement (read_text_file), the description suffices. The output schema exists to document return values, so no need to describe them. However, it doesn't explain what read_text_file offers differently, but for a deprecated tool this is acceptable.

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 has 3 parameters, with 67% description coverage (tail and head have descriptions, path does not). The description does not add meaning to the path parameter beyond stating the tool reads files; it fails to compensate for the missing schema description. Tail and head are already well-described in 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 clearly states it reads the complete contents of a file as text, and explicitly marks it as deprecated. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_text_file, though it doesn't explain the difference. The purpose is well-defined.

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 deprecation notice directly tells the agent not to use this tool and to use read_text_file instead. This provides clear guidance on when to use (rarely) and why. No further context is given for when to use the deprecated version, but that is acceptable.

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