pan_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden: '查看/view' unambiguously signals a read-only metadata operation, and the examples disclose what the result will contain (size, modification time). It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior, but those are not critical for this simple read operation.

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?

One compact Chinese sentence conveys the tool, target, scope, and example output with no filler. The key qualifier 'single' is front-loaded before the metadata examples.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description combines with a fully documented schema to give an agent what it needs to call the tool. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to reach for a listing/search sibling instead, which is a minor gap given the clear 'single item' qualifier.

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 the schema already documents path and space. The description adds the notion of a single file/directory and what 'info' means, but it does not elaborate on path syntax or space resolution beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 (查看/view) and resource (单个文件/目录的元信息), with concrete examples of the metadata returned (size, modification time). The 'single item' qualifier clearly separates it from sibling tools like pan_list_dir, which lists a directory's contents, and pan_download_file, which retrieves file data.

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 implies the use case—inspect metadata for one path—but never states when to prefer this tool over pan_list_dir or pan_search, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the purpose but not a routing rule.

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