get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'información detallada' (detailed information), but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., file size, permissions, timestamps) or behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or security implications. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Obtener información detallada') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns structured data about files/directories. It doesn't explain what 'información detallada' entails, how errors are handled, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no structured metadata, this leaves the agent guessing about key behavioral 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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'file_path' clearly documented as 'Ruta del archivo o directorio' (Path of the file or directory). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Obtener información detallada de un archivo o directorio' (Get detailed information about a file or directory). It specifies both the verb ('obtener información') and the resource ('archivo o directorio'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'read_file', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_directory' (for listing contents) or 'read_file' (for reading file content), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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