lilbrain_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup and names the output categories, but it does not mention path matching behavior, missing-file errors, index freshness, or whether this is purely a structural summary versus a file read. This is modest transparency with no contradiction.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each listed category (functions, classes, sections, language) adds useful specificity. There is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description names the main return categories and makes the basic invocation understandable. However, with no output schema and no differentiation from many closely related sibling tools, an agent still lacks guidance on the exact return shape and when this tool is the right choice.

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%, and the schema already documents 'path' as 'File path (relative or partial)', so the baseline applies. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond indicating what kind of information the path will be used to retrieve.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Get info') tied to a specific resource ('a file') and enumerates the returned aspects: functions, classes, sections, language. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like lilbrain_read or lilbrain_function, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over lilbrain_read, lilbrain_function, lilbrain_overview, or other siblings. No alternative conditions or exclusions are given, so the intended selection context must be inferred from the name and output list.

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