get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does communicate the read-only nature by saying 'get metadata' and lists what will be returned, but it does not disclose behavior for missing paths, permission errors, symlinks, or how directories are handled.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, and every phrase adds information. The metadata fields are compactly listed without redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter metadata getter, the description covers the input and the returned categories. It lacks exact response format and error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the core invocation context is adequately complete without 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the path parameter. The description adds slight value by clarifying that the path can point to either a file or a directory, but it does not specify path format, required vs optional, or default behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('file/directory metadata'), and enumerates the concrete attributes returned: size, type, timestamps, permissions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_file, which returns content, and list_directory, which returns entries.

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 usage when metadata rather than content is needed, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. An agent can infer the distinction from 'metadata,' but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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