Read File (Deprecated)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about deprecation and the alternative tool, which is valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe potential limitations like file size constraints or encoding issues.

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 - just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes (stating functionality and providing deprecation guidance). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides adequate context for a deprecated tool. It clearly communicates the deprecation status and alternative, though it could potentially mention migration considerations or why this tool was deprecated.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage (two of three parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema provides reasonable coverage, though the description could have explained the interaction between 'head' and 'tail' parameters.

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 specific action ('Read the complete contents of a file as text') and distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'read_text_file' by explicitly marking it as deprecated and providing an alternative. It uses precise verbs and identifies the resource (file contents).

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 provides explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool ('DEPRECATED: Use read_text_file instead'), naming the specific alternative. This gives clear direction for tool selection among siblings, though it doesn't detail when this deprecated version might still be appropriate.

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