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 the text-decoding behavior, but says nothing about encoding failures, binary files, or size limits. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, function first and deprecation warning second, with zero filler. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the deprecation redirect is present. It stops short of noting that head/tail still apply or that the tool may be removed, which is minor given the tool's deprecated status.

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 67%, with head/tail already documented in the schema. The description's 'complete contents' actually undercuts those options without explaining how they interact. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does most of the parameter work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the complete contents of a file') plus the output form ('as text'), and explicitly names the sibling that replaces it. An agent can distinguish this from read_text_file without inspecting either 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?

Explicitly declares deprecation and names the alternative tool to use instead ('Use read_text_file instead'), which is exactly the when-not-to-use / alternative routing an agent needs. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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