get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It names some returned metadata fields, but it does not disclose permissions requirements, path resolution behavior, symlink handling, error behavior, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently states the action and the metadata categories returned.

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, the description covers the basic purpose and return categories. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, it should say more about path semantics and error behavior to be fully self-contained.

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 single required parameter is named 'path' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It does not clarify whether the path must be absolute or relative, whether it may point to either files or directories, or how invalid paths are handled.

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 and resource: 'Get metadata about a file or directory,' and lists the metadata fields returned. It distinguishes metadata retrieval from content retrieval implicitly, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as read_file or 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 intended use is implied: call this when metadata rather than file contents is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings like read_file, list_directory, or search_files.

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