Read File (Deprecated)

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that output is text and that the tool is deprecated, but it does not reconcile 'complete contents' with the optional head/tail parameters that allow partial reads, nor does it mention encoding or file-size behavior beyond what the schema/output schema imply.

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 the primary behavior stated first and the deprecation routing second. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary background.

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 simple deprecated read-only tool with an output schema and documented partial-read parameters, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the mismatch between 'complete contents' and the head/tail partial-read behavior, which could slightly mislead an agent about the default behavior.

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 67%: head and tail are documented, but path has no description. The tool description does not explain any parameters, though path is self-evident from the tool name and the head/tail meanings are already in the schema, so the description neither adds much nor creates a major gap.

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 clearly states the action: 'Read the complete contents of a file as text.' It also explicitly names the replacement tool, read_text_file, which distinguishes it from the other file-reading siblings such as read_media_file and read_multiple_files.

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 provides unambiguous routing guidance: 'DEPRECATED: Use read_text_file instead.' This tells the agent not to use this tool and directly names the alternative, which is exactly the kind of explicit guidance this dimension rewards.

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