file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core read-only behavior and the output fields, and an output schema covers return structure. But it does not address non-existent paths, symlink behavior, or what happens on permission-denied access.

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?

One tight sentence with output fields front-loaded; nothing is wasted. Minor concern: the Hungarian text may be less accessible to English-centric agents, but it is brief and purpose-first.

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?

Two parameters, zero schema descriptions, zero annotations, and a large sibling set demand more than one sentence. The core purpose is clear and the output schema covers return values, but serial's meaning and selection guidance are missing, making this thin for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists output metadata, not parameter meaning. remote_path is reasonably self-explanatory by name, while serial is entirely unexplained — an agent cannot infer whether it is a device identifier, session ID, or something else.

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 single sentence identifies a concrete resource (a file or directory) and the deliverable (metadata: size, permissions, modification time). The metadata focus differentiates it from file-content tools like read_file, but the verb is implied rather than explicit ('metadata of' rather than 'retrieve/get').

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 on when to choose file_info over read_file, list_files, pull_file, or move_path — a meaningful gap given roughly 70 sibling tools. The metadata focus implies the use case, but no alternative or exclusion is named.

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