get_file_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states 'get metadata' which implies read-only, but does not confirm read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., file not found), or whether it works on directories. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 very short: one sentence plus an Args line. It is efficient and gets straight to the point. However, it could be improved with a bit more context without adding much length.

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 tool is simple and has no output schema, the description should explain what 'metadata' includes (e.g., size, type, permissions) and potential errors. It does not, leaving the agent without essential information about return values or failure modes.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'Absolute path to the target.' This provides crucial semantic meaning (must be absolute, refers to file or directory) beyond the type and name in the schema. Effectively compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Get metadata for a file or directory.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_file' (which reads content) and 'file_ops' (which performs operations). The scope is well-defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., root path must be set), nor does it indicate when to prefer this over reading file content. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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