get_file_info

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It lists output fields but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether symlinks are followed, whether permissions are needed, or how non-existent paths are handled. The read-only nature is only implicit in 'stat'.

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 efficiently states the operation and the key output fields. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both parameter semantics and behavioral context. It lists return fields but omits the distro parameter, error cases, and any discussion of permissions or side effects. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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 zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'path' is a WSL path, but it does not explain the 'distro' parameter at all, leaving it ambiguous. This is inadequate given the 0% schema description 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 'stat' and identifies the resource as a 'WSL path', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also lists the exact metadata returned (type, size, mode, mtime, atime), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (content) and list_directory (listing entries).

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 this is used to obtain file metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as read_file or list_directory. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or direct comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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