operations_stat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'mirroring rclone lsjson' which gives a hint about output format, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether any modifications are made, or if special permissions are required. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Stat an object'). It is concise with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear scope (single entry) and hints at output via the lsjson reference, but it lacks details on the exact return format, behavior with directories versus files, or how the 'opt' parameter affects results, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool returns metadata for a single file or directory, which is a specific verb and resource. The reference to 'mirroring rclone lsjson' hints at differentiation from listing tools like rclone_lsjson, but it could be more explicit in distinguishing from sibling operations.

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 for single-item metadata retrieval via the phrase 'single file or directory', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as rclone_lsjson or operations_size, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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