File Get Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the path format, the search-root restriction, and that the operation is a metadata fetch, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the path is invalid or outside the allowed root.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and resource are front-loaded, followed by essential path-format and restriction details. Every sentence contributes useful 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 this is a simple single-parameter metadata retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the necessary invocation details: what the tool does, acceptable path forms, and a security constraint. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and calling it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter 'path' with concrete format guidance: native path or file:/// URL, as returned by file_search, and constrained to an allowed root. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 explicitly states a specific action ('Fetch full indexed metadata'), a specific resource type ('a single file'), and the accepted path forms. It distinguishes itself from file_search by describing the post-search retrieval use case, making its role clear among siblings.

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 clear usage context by indicating that paths come from prior file_search results and must be within an allowed search root. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the workflow implication is strong and sufficient for an agent.

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