read_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool is deprecated, but provides no information about operations, side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The deprecation status is useful but minimal.

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, front-loaded with the most critical information ('Deprecated') and immediately directing to the replacement. It is appropriately sized and leaves no wasted words.

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?

While the deprecation notice is clear, the description provides no information about the tool's functionality, parameters, or output. The presence of an output schema does not compensate, and the description is insufficient for an agent to effectively use this tool if needed.

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 contains no parameter information. The three parameters (file_path, max_bytes, project_path) are entirely unexplained, so the description adds no value for understanding how to invoke the tool.

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 is a deprecation notice rather than a statement of what the tool does. It does not specify a verb or resource, leaving the purpose to be inferred from the tool name 'read_log'. While it points to a sibling, it does not explicitly define the tool's own function.

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 states 'Deprecated: use artifact_read,' which directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and specifies the alternative. This is clear and actionable usage guidance, fully covering the dimension.

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