fs_stat

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely behavioral information — that paths are resolved relative to the sandbox root — and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about error behavior for nonexistent paths, symlink handling, or permission requirements.

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 short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the docstring-style 'Args' block is compact. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness is what leaves the gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields needn't be described, and one parameter is simple. Still, for a stat tool the most common agent question — what happens if the path does not exist — is unaddressed, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the single parameter is undocumented in the schema itself; the description supplies the key semantic that path is relative to the sandbox root. It does not clarify whether absolute paths are rejected or how parent/self references are treated, so it only partially compensates.

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 and resource: viewing metadata of a file or directory inside the sandbox. That clearly distinguishes it from fs_read (contents) and fs_write (mutation), though it never explicitly names those siblings or contrasts with fs_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus fs_list or fs_search, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens on a missing path. Usage is only inferable from the stated purpose.

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