filestation_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only a scope phrase ('specific files or folders') and gives no behavioral context such as what happens for nonexistent paths, whether paths are absolute or DSM-relative, or whether missing entries are omitted or errored.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most useful information (what metadata is returned) is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a structured description, which slightly limits readability but not economy.

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 (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values; it sensibly names the fields returned. However, it omits path format conventions and any usage framing, leaving the agent to guess how to construct the input and when this tool is the right choice.

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% for the single required 'paths' parameter, so the description must carry the load but does not: it never says paths are an array of multiple path strings, what format they take, or whether wildcards are accepted. Saying 'specific files or folders' only hints that both file and folder paths are valid.

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 the concrete payload (size, modified time, real volume path) and the target resource (specific files or folders), so an agent knows this is a metadata lookup rather than a listing. The verb is implicit ('info') and it never names filestation_list or filestation_list_shares, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this over filestation_list, and no note on prerequisites such as the shares needing to be mounted. The agent must infer usage purely from the output fields mentioned.

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