get_file_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it works on directories or only files, if there are any restrictions (e.g., file size limits), or what happens if the path doesn't exist. The description is minimally transparent.

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 is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could include additional useful details (e.g., output format) without being verbose, so it is slightly under-informative for maximum conciseness.

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 should fully explain what the tool returns. It mentions three metadata fields but does not specify output format, all possible fields, or error behavior. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is adequate but not complete.

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 schema already documents the 'path' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it hints at the kind of metadata returned, which indirectly adds context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('detailed metadata about a file'), and provides specific examples ('size, modification date, and MIME type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_file' which returns content, and 'list_directory' which lists 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that it should be used over 'read_file' when only metadata is needed, or that it can be used on directories. Sibling tools like 'get_directory_tree' exist but no comparison is made.

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