file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., missing file), or any side effects. The description only states the purpose, omitting behavioral traits beyond that.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence for the purpose and a single line for the parameter. There is no fluff, and the 'Args:' structure is clear and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the basic purpose and param. However, it lacks usage guidelines and any note on what metadata is returned or potential errors. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in context.

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?

The schema only lists 'file_path' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by specifying 'Relative path to the file', which clarifies that the path is relative (not absolute) and is a file, not a directory. This is valuable semantic information that the schema lacks.

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 states 'Get metadata about a file' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_files, read_file, and search_files, as it focuses on metadata rather than listing, reading content, or searching.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer file_info over list_files or read_file, nor does it give exclusions. This leaves the agent without explicit context for tool selection.

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