read_file

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as effects, permissions, or error behavior. The deprecation status is the only behavioral hint, but it is not elaborated (e.g., whether the tool still functions).

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place as a tool description since it omits essential purpose and parameter information.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 3 parameters, the description is missing all context needed for invocation. Since the tool is deprecated, the redirect is useful, but for any contextual understanding of the tool itself, it is completely inadequate.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters like file_path, max_bytes, or project_path. The agent gets no help understanding what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 'Deprecated: use artifact_read' does not state what the tool does. It only provides a deprecation notice and redirects to another tool, leaving the actual purpose (reading a file) implicit from the name but not described.

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 explicitly says 'Deprecated' and names the alternative 'artifact_read', giving clear when-not-to-use guidance. This is useful for an agent to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

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