file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete metadata fields the caller receives, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/unreadable path or whether symlinks are followed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the useful information (returned fields) is included after the verb. Efficient, though it could carry one more clause on path format without bloat.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the right compensation and it does so. Gaps remain around path resolution and failure behavior for a nonexistent file, which an agent would hit in practice.

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% and the single param is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about path format — absolute vs relative, tilde expansion, or whether directories are accepted — which is the one thing the terse 'File path' schema leaves open.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata about a file') and enumerates the returned fields (size, type, modification time). This distinguishes it in practice from siblings like read_file (content) or list_directory, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over read_file, list_directory, or open_file_manager — the agent must infer that this is the metadata-only option. No mention of preconditions such as the file existing.

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