file_info

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description never confirms this, never mentions error behavior or permission/auth requirements, and never indicates what metadata fields are returned or whether it follows symlinks. For a zero-annotation tool these are substantial gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the resource and scope appear immediately. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (one required string, no nesting), so it does not need much. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch what metadata is returned and confirm the read-only nature; those omissions leave real uncertainty about the return value.

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 single 'file' parameter has no documentation in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does add one genuinely useful piece of meaning – that the parameter accepts a directory as well as a file – but gives no hints about path format (absolute vs relative to workspace root).

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 names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('metadata') scoped to 'a file or directory in the workspace', which distinguishes it in spirit from content-reading siblings like read_file or listing tools like list_files. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'metadata' alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'metadata' suggests this is the tool to reach for when file contents are not wanted, and 'file or directory' hints it works on both. There is no explicit when-to-use versus read_file/list_files guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens when the path does not exist.

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