tenki_stat_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly which metadata fields are returned and positioning the tool as an existence/inspection helper before mutation operations. It does not describe behavior for missing paths, but the annotations lower the burden here.

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 compact two-sentence structure with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return type, and the second sentence gives actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 stat operation with only two fully documented parameters and strong safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the metadata fields, the sandbox scope, and the intended use case. Minor gaps remain, such as how a nonexistent path is reported, but nothing critical prevents correct invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the input schema: path is an absolute path under /home/tenki and session_id is a sandbox UUID. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get metadata') and a precise resource ('a file or directory in a sandbox'), naming the data returned: size, mode, type, timestamps. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tenki_read_file, tenki_list_files, or tenki_remove_path by focusing on metadata and existence checks rather than content operations.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to use this tool: 'Use to check whether a path exists or inspect it before reading/removing.' This provides clear context, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or state explicit exclusion cases such as 'use read_file if you need file contents.'

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