file_operations_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('get information') but does not state whether errors occur for invalid IDs, what the response structure is, or whether it has side effects. For a simple info tool, this is minimal but still lacks key behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, and there is no verbosity or irrelevant detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is still insufficient. It does not explain what information is returned, how to handle errors, or how this tool relates to the broader file operations group. Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context but does not.

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 schema fully covers the single parameter 'id' with the description 'File operation ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate—the parameter is adequately documented but the description does not enhance it.

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 'Get information about a file operation' clearly identifies the action (get information) and resource (file operation), which differentiates it from the sibling 'file_operations_list' (which lists operations) and 'file_operations_redirect' (which redirects). It is specific enough for an informational tool, though it could mention that it retrieves details for a specific operation by ID.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_operations_list or file_operations_redirect. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid operation ID, or when a user should choose this over other file operation tools.

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