file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a list of returned metadata fields but no further behavioral context such as remote-host resolution, missing-file behavior, or response_format effects. It does not contradict the 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 compact: one lead sentence followed by a minimal Args/Returns block. It contains no filler or repetition of annotations, though the Returns line adds little information.

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?

For a simple metadata read, the annotations and schema provide the core safety and parameter details. However, the description omits when to choose this tool over list_files/read_file and does not mention failure or remote-host edge cases, so completeness is adequate but not strong.

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 merely repeats the parameter names path, host, and response_format without adding meaning about requiredness, types, defaults, or host semantics. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation, but it does not.

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 that the tool returns file/directory metadata (size, type, permissions, owner, timestamps), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files or read_file. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get', but the Returns clause makes the read intent unambiguous.

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 given on when to use file_info instead of list_files or read_file, nor is any alternative mentioned. The description only says what the tool returns, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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