get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes that the tool returns statistics, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, what happens if the file does not exist, or any side effects. This lack of detail could lead to unexpected outcomes.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a structured format with Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section is redundant with the parameter name and could be integrated more fluidly. Overall, it is efficient but not maximally polished.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description provides basic completeness: it states the purpose and expected return fields. However, it lacks context on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., connection status), and usage scenarios. For a minimal tool, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 single parameter 'file_name' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds a placeholder line 'Name of the Universe file' which trivially rephrases the parameter name without adding format, constraints, or examples. The description should provide more context for the parameter to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Get information about a Universe file' and lists specific return fields (type, modulo, separation, record count). It distinguishes the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like describe_file or analyze_file_structure, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., describe_file, analyze_file_structure) or any prerequisites/context like requiring an active connection. Without this, an agent may misuse the tool.

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