Get File Info Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-value burden is covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially nothing beyond structured fields — no note on which metadata fields are returned, whether missing filenames error out, or how namespaces/redirects are handled.

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?

One short sentence, resource-first, with zero filler. Nothing in the sentence fails to earn its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description tells an agent enough to call it correctly. The only meaningful omission is the lookup-vs-list decision relative to list_files_tool.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented (including the optional "File:" prefix handling), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional filename syntax or resolution semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (file/image metadata) scoped to the wiki, which is clearly distinct from sibling list_files_tool (enumerating files) and get_page_tool (page content). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the resource itself disambiguates well.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus list_files_tool (to find a filename) or get_page_tool (for page content). The only usage signal is implicit in the resource name, which is the same deficiency the MID calibration example was penalized for.

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