Files Get File Info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile, but the description adds zero behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose error behavior for missing or invalid paths, whether the path must be absolute, permission requirements, or what information is returned. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description itself contributes nothing.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence is spent restating the tool name inside generic delegation boilerplate instead of conveying function, behavior, or parameter meaning, so the brevity earns no credit.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are strong, which lowers the burden, but the description still fails to explain the tool's core purpose, the meaning of the path parameter, or how to choose it among many file-related siblings. With only one required parameter, the missing purpose and parameter semantics leave the definition materially incomplete.

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 fails to compensate: the sole parameter 'path' is entirely undefined — no format, no absolute-vs-relative guidance, no file-vs-directory distinction. With no enums and no textual help in either the schema or the description, an agent has no semantic grounding for the one required argument.

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 is a tautology: it restates the tool name ('files_get_file_info') and adds only the generic wrapper phrase 'Delegated Apple domain tool... exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP.' It never states what 'file info' actually means, what properties are returned, or how this differs from sibling tools like files_list_directory, files_read_text_file, or files_get_tags. The title carries the only real meaning, not the description.

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 call this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer files_get_file_info over files_list_directory, files_read_text_file, files_get_tags, or files_search_files, and no preconditions, exclusions, or context for selecting it are given.

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