Read File (Deprecated)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding the truncation contract: results over 50,000 characters are cut short and end with a notice explaining how to fetch the rest. That continuation behavior is real operational context not present in annotations. It omits error behavior (missing file, permission, binary content), keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose, deprecation routing, then windowing and truncation behavior. The deprecation warning is prominently placed early so an agent cannot miss it.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing text output plus the truncation notice. For a read-only file tool with 80% schema coverage, the main remaining gaps are encoding assumptions and failure modes, which are minor here.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the non-obvious workflow of feeding the offset from a truncation notice back into a follow-up call, which the schema alone does not convey. It says nothing about head/tail, which are documented only in the schema.

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 as text') and explicitly names the sibling that replaces it ('Use read_text_file instead'). An agent can distinguish it from read_text_file, read_media_file, and read_multiple_files without opening any 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?

The deprecation notice routes the agent to read_text_file, which is a clear alternative, and the description tells the agent to use offset/limit for windowed reads. It does not explain when this deprecated tool should still be preferred over the replacement, nor how head/tail relate to offset/limit, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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