File Stat

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

The description adds the optional SHA256 inclusion behavior, which is not in annotations. However, there is no mention of other behavioral aspects like recursion, permissions, or metadata fields. Annotations already indicate read-only, so the description's additional value is moderate.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the hash option as an afterthought.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about projectPath requirements, relative paths, or error conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete for a stat operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter (e.g., format of projectPath, meaning of includeHash). The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'metadata for a file or directory inside a project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like file.list (listing) or file.delete.

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 versus alternatives such as file.list or file.stat for different purposes. No when-not-to-use or context is given.

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