get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the kind of information returned (size, date, permissions), which indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not mention the hash algorithm behavior, the external access approval flow, or any potential side effects. The description provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') and highlights key examples. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a baseline understanding of the tool's main outputs but does not explain the optional parameters or their practical use cases. It also lacks guidance on when to use the tool in a broader workflow. The description is minimally adequate but not rich in context.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema's explanations. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't introduce new parameter meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get detailed information' and names the resource 'file' with concrete attributes (Size, Modified Date, Permissions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (which reads content) and read_dir (which lists directory entries), making the tool's role 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?

The description implies its use for retrieving file metadata but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of read_file for metadata' or mention any prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a simple tool, but explicit guidance is missing.

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