get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the tool handles missing paths (returns error) and returns a JSON string with metadata. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool, though it could be more specific about what 'metadata' includes.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameter, and return format adequately. The output schema can provide further metadata field details, so this is complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'File or directory path' for the single parameter, which clarifies its context beyond the bare 'string' type. However, this is minimal and avoids further detail like format or examples.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'metadata', and specifies it applies to 'a file, directory, or missing path.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_files' (search) or 'list_directory' (list contents).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context signals show many file-related siblings, but the description does not mention when to prefer 'get_file_info' over 'find_files' or 'list_directory'.

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