file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the permission requirement (file.info), which is valuable. However, it does not describe potential side effects, return format, or behavior on missing files or permission failures, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists key return fields, followed by the permission requirement. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.

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 metadata retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, permission, and key data points. With no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning the return structure, but the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, so the score matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('file metadata') with concrete examples of the data returned (size, type, permissions, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_read (content), file_list (directory listing), and file_delete (removal).

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 retrieving metadata rather than file contents, which differentiates from file_read and file_list. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving the selection largely implicit.

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