get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that this is a metadata retrieval operation and lists the type of information returned, implying a safe, read-only action. While it doesn't cover error cases or permissions, the simplicity of the operation makes this sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that delivers the essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main verb and object, making it immediately understandable.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and expected outcome. It could mention the return format or potential errors, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter ('path'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional semantic details about the path parameter beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get metadata') and resource ('file or directory'), and provides concrete examples of what is returned (size, modification date, path stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that read content, write, delete, or list directories.

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 implies the use case: when metadata rather than content is needed, this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'read_file' for content, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct choice.

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