Legacy: paste_read → paste.read

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

The annotations already provide the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description's lack of behavioral discussion is acceptable. The description does add the 'legacy' routing hint, which is a form of behavioral context, but it does not disclose anything else about execution, rate limits, or return 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words; the most important fact (need to prefer paste.read) is front-loaded. It is entirely focused and 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 one-parameter, read-only legacy alias with complete schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention that the tool still functions, but that is implied by describing it as a 'legacy alias'; the routing guidance is the critical missing piece, which this description provides.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which includes provenance and type. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail; per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is correct.

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 identifies the tool as a legacy alias for paste.read, which implies a read operation on a paste resource, and it explicitly distinguishes the operation from paste.write via the pointed sibling name. However, it relies on the agent knowing what paste.read does rather than stating the behavior in absolute terms.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer paste.read' clearly tells the agent which sibling to use instead and signals that this tool is only for legacy compatibility. This is a direct when-not-to-use statement with the alternative named.

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