get_resource_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly conveys that this is a read-only metadata fetch ('Fetch metadata') without side effects. It adds context about the resource referencing format (':/<resource_id>') and what metadata is included (mime type, file extension), providing useful behavioral context beyond a bare 'get information'. It does not explicitly state non-mutation, but the verb 'fetch' strongly implies a safe read operation.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, with a purpose sentence, a usage sentence, and a small Args block. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but still adds a one-line definition. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role, though the Args block could be trimmed given the schema already lists the parameter.

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 is simple: a single required parameter, an output schema (which need not be described), and clear guidance on when to use it. The description provides the essential context (what a resource is, what metadata is returned, and how to use it with get_resource_file), making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has no description for the single parameter, so the description's mention of 'resource_id: The Joplin resource id' adds a basic definition. More valuably, the description's explanation of the ':/<resource_id>' reference format gives the agent practical guidance on how to find or interpret the resource_id, compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch metadata') and a clear resource type ('Joplin resource'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning that it retrieves metadata like mime type and file extension. The parenthetical about attachment/image with ':/<resource_id>' reference further clarifies the resource concept, setting it apart from get_resource_file and get_resource_ocr_text.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before get_resource_file to pick a sensible file extension for the saved file', which clearly states when to use this tool and names the alternative get_resource_file. This gives the agent a concrete scenario and workflow, making the usage guidance highly actionable.

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