File details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by scoping what is disclosed (template, app build, slide counts) and framing it as non-content inspection. It stops short of stating edge behavior for non-iWork files, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, both earning their place, with the capability listed first and the routing rule second. The mid-sentence enumeration is dense but each item is a concrete, useful fact, so it stays readable rather than padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The description is complete enough to invoke correctly; only minor gaps remain around behavior on unsupported or corrupt files, which the sibling/annotation context partially absorbs.

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% with a single well-documented 'path' parameter (absolute or ~ paths), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional path syntax, accepted extensions, or format nuances beyond what the schema already states — baseline 3.

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 resource (file metadata) and enumerates exactly what it reports: kind, size, modified, template, app builds, format version, slide count, embedded media count. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling iwork_read, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('use for file facts... without reading content') and names the alternative with its triggering condition ('For the content itself use iwork_read'). Nothing is left to inference for the read-vs-metadata decision.

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