read_project_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals the tool is deprecated but says nothing about what it returns, side effects, access requirements, or any other behavior. For a file-read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent unsure of the actual operational semantics beyond knowing it's a deprecated alias.

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, a single declarative sentence stating deprecation and the canonical replacement. There is zero waste; however, it borders on under-specification rather than genuine efficient fullness, which caps the score.

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?

An output schema exists, which reduces the need to document return values. Given the tool is a simple deprecated alias with one parameter, the description arguably provides necessary guidance (deprecation status + canonical reference). However, for a tool that an agent might actually need to invoke (the alias may still function), omitting any behavioral detail is a notable gap.

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 0% and there is only one parameter 'path'. The description adds no semantic detail about the 'path' parameter beyond the schema's type declaration. However, given the tool is a deprecated alias, the parameter semantics are reasonably inferable from the canonical tool; still, the description itself contributes no added meaning.

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 states the tool is a 'DEPRECATED alias for project.files.read.v1', which identifies its purpose as the deprecated version of reading a project file. However, it never states what the tool actually does (read file contents) directly; it only references the canonical tool. The verb 'read' is implied via the alias target, but the description lacks an explicit statement of the tool's function.

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?

By explicitly marking itself as 'DEPRECATED' and pointing to 'project.files.read.v1', the description gives clear guidance: do not use this tool, use the canonical alias instead. This effectively differentiates it from the active sibling project.files.read.v1 and directs the agent to the correct alternative.

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