file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Changes nothing' largely reinforces that. It earns credit for going beyond structure by disclosing the returned fields and, critically, that the returned version is the one write_file needs in order to replace the file — a non-obvious workflow dependency.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and field list, then routing, then a safety reassurance. Every sentence earns its place, though 'Changes nothing' is mild duplication of the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out; nonetheless the description helpfully names the fields. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema and annotation coverage, this is essentially complete, with only missing-file/locked-vault behavior left unspecified.

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 100%, with both 'vault' and 'path' documented including format examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no path/vault syntax beyond 'in an open vault' and the implied pairing with the vaults tool, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (show details of one file or folder) and enumerates exactly what is returned: kind, size, last change, encrypted storage location, and the version token. It explicitly distinguishes itself from read_file, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names a concrete alternative with its selecting condition: 'Use read_file for the contents,' which tells the agent when this tool is not the right one. It lacks explicit guidance on failure modes (missing path, locked vault), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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