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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (type, size, modification time), notes the performance characteristic (cheaper than listing), and references the bundleId root selection behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects (though 'get metadata' implies a safe read) or error behavior, but coverage is good for a simple stat operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then immediately providing usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place: no filler, no redundancy, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (type, size, modification time), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It also covers when to use the tool, cost implications, and the root selection behavior. For a low-complexity stat tool with three parameters, this is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the bundleId parameter's meaning through a direct reference to ios_file_list ('Same bundleId root selection'), which provides semantic context beyond the schema text. The remotePath and udid parameters are adequately covered by the schema, and the description's mention of 'when you already know the path' reinforces remotePath semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Get metadata'), resource ('one file or directory on an iOS device'), and the exact fields returned ('type, size and modification time'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ios_file_list and ios_file_pull by noting it's cheaper than listing and is the way to check size before pulling.

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 provides clear usage context: use when the path is already known, as a cheaper alternative to listing, and to check file size before pulling. It names the sibling tool ios_file_list for bundleId root selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or enumerate all alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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