Read File (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the deprecation status and that content is returned as text, but gives no further behavioral detail such as error handling, permissions, or large-file behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical deprecation warning. Every word 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?

For a simple read tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it states the action, return type, and replacement. It only misses explicit head/tail behavior, which is covered by the schema.

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 only 67%, and the description adds no information about the head or tail parameters. Worse, 'complete contents' implies the entire file is always returned, which is misleading when head/tail are supplied.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read the complete contents of a file as text') and directly names the replacement sibling ('Use read_text_file instead'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and names the alternative tool to use instead. This is the strongest possible routing guidance for a deprecated tool.

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