get_file_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are 'deterministic,' which is a useful trait, and lists the output fields. However, it omits any mention of error handling (e.g., nonexistent file), permission requirements, or side effects. For a read-only metadata operation, this is a moderate gap but not egregious.

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 sentence that efficiently lists what the tool returns. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, because there are no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent might not know when to prefer this tool over others or what edge cases exist. The description is sufficient for basic comprehension but lacks completeness in behavioral and contextual aspects.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'path' with no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the path parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on path format, absolute vs relative paths, or file accessibility. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource 'file metadata' and enumerates the output fields (size, hash, magic, extension, MIME guess, entropy). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_text_excerpt or read_binary_slice; the distinction is implied by the nature of 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like inspecting files before reading content, nor does it exclude cases where other tools are more appropriate. There are no prerequisites or conditions stated.

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