get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully signals this is a metadata read by listing fields, but does not state read-only safety, required permissions, error behavior, or whether folders and files are treated differently.

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 short sentence enumerating fields, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler; every listed item is relevant.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the main return contents, which is helpful. It still omits return format and error/read-only details, but is largely complete for this simple operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single path parameter includes an example, so the schema already provides semantics. The description adds no path-specific detail beyond 'file or folder', leaving baseline 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 names the resource (file or folder) and enumerates the returned metadata (size, dates, type, file ID, permissions, web link), so the agent knows it retrieves metadata rather than content. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like read_file or list_files, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent can infer it is for metadata inspection, but there is no explicit routing against read_file, list_files, or search_files.

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