stat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates a read-only operation ('status/metadata') and details the return fields. It does not mention side effects (none expected) or error handling, but the basic behavior is well-covered.

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 structured as a docstring with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples). It is concise, with no unnecessary words, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and a well-documented return format. The description covers all necessary information for an agent to use it correctly, even without an output schema. It is complete for the given 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 explicitly defines both parameters with types and purposes: 'endpoint_id: The UUID of the endpoint' and 'path: Path to the file or directory'. Since schema coverage is 0%, this fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'status/metadata of a file or directory on an endpoint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ls' (which lists directory contents) by focusing on metadata retrieval.

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 examples that illustrate typical usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer 'ls' for listing or 'stat' for metadata. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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