get_file_info

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already declare the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds the types of metadata returned but does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling or requirements for the 'file' vs 'path' parameter.

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 concise sentence that includes examples of metadata. It is well-structured with no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Despite the tool having no output schema, the description only mentions three metadata types (size, dates, type) without specifying the exact return format. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this lacks sufficient detail for the agent to fully understand the response.

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% because both parameters ('file' and 'path') have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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 'Get metadata about a file (size, dates, type)' clearly states the action (get metadata) and the resource (file), and lists specific attributes. This differentiates it from siblings like 'read_note' (content) and 'get_backlinks' (links).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_note' or 'get_properties'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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