Get File Info

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

The description accurately reflects the readOnlyHint annotation by framing the operation as retrieval with no side effects. It adds the meaningful constraint that it only works within allowed directories, though it does not describe error behavior for invalid paths.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences to convey purpose, output content, and constraints without extraneous detail.

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-retrieval tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, that it does not read content, and the access boundary. It lacks explicit error/edge-case details, but these are not critical given the read-only, closed-world annotations.

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 does not mention the 'path' parameter at all, and the input schema provides only its type and required status. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining what the path should refer to.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed metadata about a file or directory'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from content-reading tools by noting it returns metadata without reading content. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like read_file and list_directory.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use it ('understanding file characteristics without reading actual content') and states the allowed-directory constraint. It does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools, but the intended use case is evident from the description.

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