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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields carries real weight as a de-facto return-value spec, but it adds nothing about errors (e.g., nonexistent path) or device-resolution behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return attributes are listed compactly. It could be marginally improved by leading with the distinguishing use case, but there is no waste.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned, which is the critical information here. However, it omits any guidance on the optional 'device' parameter and any sibling disambiguation, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter tool with 50% schema coverage.

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 only 50%: 'device' is documented in-schema, but 'path' has no description in either the schema or the description. The phrase 'a file or folder' hints that path accepts both, but the description does not explain path syntax, base directory, or when the device argument is needed.

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?

It states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('file or folder') and enumerates the returned attributes (type, size, timestamps, permissions), so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_file or list_directory, which is the only gap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_directory, read_file, or search_files, and no prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer from the tool name that this is for metadata inspection only.

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