Inspect file metadata and SHA-256

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that bytes are not exposed and mentions shared workspace/link/sensitive-path policies, providing extra context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with essential information: function, limitation, use case, and policy alignment. No fluff or redundancy.

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 metadata/hash tool, the description covers key aspects: what it returns, what it avoids, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear explanation of the return value. It is complete enough for 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 descriptions cover workspace_id but not path, giving 50% coverage. The description does not add any parameter details, but the parameters are simple and self-explanatory (path, workspace_id). This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 clearly states it returns metadata and SHA-256 for a regular file, and explicitly notes it does not expose bytes, distinguishing it from content-reading tools. The phrase 'use this SHA before editing large text files' gives a concrete purpose and workflow.

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?

It provides a specific use case ('use this SHA before editing large text files') and clarifies the tool's non-content nature. While it doesn't compare directly to sibling tools, the 'without exposing its bytes' phrase implies when not to use it, giving adequate guidance.

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