file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description contributes the useful hint that existence is reported as a result rather than raised as an error, but says nothing about permissions, failures, or latency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause names a distinct capability of the tool.

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 need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the only real gap is path syntax and error semantics on a missing file.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the path format. It only implies that the path points at a Netdisk file or folder; absolute vs relative form, root syntax, and whether trailing slashes matter are all unstated.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Read exact Netdisk file/folder metadata') plus an enumeration of the returned fields: existence, size, file ID, modification time. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like move/rename, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_files, which also surfaces file information.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch metadata for a known path. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_files (bulk enumeration) or status, and no note on prerequisites such as authentication or mounted paths.

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