get_fs_info_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only lists error codes but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or what 'FileInfos' contains. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise with two sentences, but the extensive error code list adds clutter and may overwhelm the agent. The purpose is front-loaded, but the list could be shortened or placed elsewhere.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context about the path parameter and does not differentiate from similar tools like get_fs_ls_path. The error code list is not contextualized. Overall incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the 'path' parameter. It only says 'given path' without explaining format (absolute/relative), path type (file/directory), or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.

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 'Returns the FileInfos for the given path', specifying a verb ('Returns') and a resource ('FileInfos'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_fs_ls_path by focusing on a single path, but could be more explicit about 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_fs_ls_path. The description does not include any context for usage or when not to use it.

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