everything_get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned ('complete indexing metadata and filesystem stats') but does not indicate side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error behavior (e.g., non-existent path handling), or any performance considerations. The description is too sparse to be transparent for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool with one parameter.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does, but it omits details about the return structure (what 'complete indexing metadata and filesystem stats' exactly includes), potential errors, and how it integrates with sibling tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, some additional context would be beneficial, but the core purpose is covered.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', including an example. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify format restrictions, encoding, or relative vs absolute paths. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, this meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('complete indexing metadata and filesystem stats for a specific file or folder path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'everything_search' or 'everything_find_files', which operate on queries rather than a given path. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that it is for direct path lookups versus searching, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the name and description that this is for path-based metadata retrieval, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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