File Property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the purpose. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether an authenticated session is required (the host/port/scheme/profile params strongly imply one), or what happens for a nonexistent path.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with five parameters including session/connection context and no annotations, the description should say more about auth requirements and how it differs from metadata siblings. As written it is too thin for the tool's surface area.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('获取文件/目录属性' – get file/directory properties), which is clear enough for an agent to know the general operation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that also surface file metadata (file_size, file_usage, file_access, file_is_mount_point), and '属性' is left undefined.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over file_size/file_usage, and no indication of prerequisites such as authentication or which connection parameters must be supplied. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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