describe_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'Return', but it does not say what happens when the file is missing, whether paths are validated, what permissions are required, or what 'kind' means.

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 definition is a single tight sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate, but because there is no output schema it does not explain the return shape beyond 'kind and metadata'. Missing-file behavior and metadata field details are also left unstated.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as a path relative to the workspace, and the description adds no additional syntax, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('kind and metadata for one file in the workspace'), so it is immediately clear what the tool does. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool, but no sibling appears to overlap directly with describing a single file.

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 phrase 'for one file in the workspace' implies this is for a known single file, but the description does not state when to use this instead of scan_workspace, list_kinds, or other discovery tools. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing instructions.

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