Read file (deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — deprecation status — but says nothing about how head/tail/limit/offset interact, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (DEPRECATED) before the alias target. It is well-sized for a redirect, though the brevity comes at the cost of any parameter or behavior detail.

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 deprecated alias with rich annotations and no output schema, a one-line redirect is defensible, and deferring detail to read_text_file is reasonable. However, the five undocumented parameters mean an agent cannot verify whether head/tail/limit/offset are honored here without opening the sibling tool.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description gives no meaning for any of them. The only indirect help is the 'alias of read_text_file' claim, implying the same signature as that tool, which an agent could infer but is never stated.

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 plainly that this is a deprecated alias of read_text_file, which tells an agent exactly what it is and how it relates to a named sibling. It stops short of describing the read behavior itself, relying on the name/title for the verb+resource, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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?

Marking the tool DEPRECATED and naming read_text_file as the aliased tool effectively routes the agent to the non-deprecated sibling. It does not spell out an explicit 'use X instead' instruction or any exclusion, so it is strong but not complete guidance.

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