efs_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'Get' to signal a read-only operation and lists the precise return fields (size, type, line count, timestamps), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or how errors like a missing path are handled, leaving a small gap.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists specific metadata fields. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the metadata fields returned, which serves as a de facto output specification. It is adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, though it could clarify the format or units of the returned values.

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 input schema already describes the 'path' parameter as 'File path', and description coverage is 100%. The description adds a small clarification by saying 'file/directory', indicating the path can point to either, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond that.

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 'Get file/directory metadata' with a specific verb and resource, and it enumerates the exact metadata fields (size, type, line count, created/modified timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_read (file content) and efs_list (directory entries).

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 implies usage for metadata retrieval but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. It lacks exclusions such as 'do not use this for file content' or 'use efs_read instead when you need the contents', so the guidance is only implied.

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