file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond safety. It does by specifying that the SHA-256 hash is optional and limited to regular files, which is useful for setting expectations.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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, the description does not explain what metadata fields are returned, which could leave an agent guessing about the response shape. For such a small tool, however, the path and hash parameters are fully covered, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including path constraints and the include_hash default. The description's 'optional SHA-256 hash for regular files' mostly restates the schema's include_hash description, adding no significant new meaning.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('file or directory metadata'), plus the optional SHA-256 hash. This clearly separates it from content-reading siblings like read_file and listing tools like list_directory.

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 metadata-and-hash scope gives a clear context for when the tool is appropriate, while the read-only annotations reinforce safe use. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear for a metadata lookup.

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