lb_stat_path

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns metadata (size, type, canonical path, modification time) but does not disclose behavior around non-existent paths, permission errors, or whether symlinks are resolved. With annotations covering the main behavioral aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 one clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action and lists the return fields compactly. Every part earns 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 simple, read-only, single-parameter tool with annotations declaring reading safety, the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks details on error behavior (missing path, permissions) and path resolution specifics (canonical path implies symlink resolution), which would help an agent handle failures. Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, a 3 is fair.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description clarifies that target_path refers to a file or directory path, which is the core meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify path format (relative/absolute), whether it must be an existing path, or anything about handling of directories vs files. Since the description adds some semantic meaning but not complete parameter documentation, a 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('a file or directory') plus the specific data fields (size, type, canonical path, modification time). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lb_list_entries or lb_read_text, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 tool's purpose and the 'file or directory' scope imply when to use it, especially compared to lb_list_entries or lb_read_text, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as when a listing or reading content is needed. The description gives context but no explicit exclusions or alternative selection guidance.

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