get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only metadata operation and names the returned dimensions, but does not disclose error behavior, path resolution details, or what happens for missing/invalid paths.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource while enumerating the key metadata fields. No wasted words and no repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description names the resource, the metadata included, and the path parameter. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention the return format or error behavior.

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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter as 'File or directory path', and the description reiterates that it applies to both files and directories. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds no format or additional semantic constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('file or directory metadata'), and specific attributes ('size, timestamps, and type'). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (content) and list_directory (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 the tool is for inspecting metadata rather than content or deletion, and the attribute list gives context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over read_file or list_directory, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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