get_file_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get file metadata' and '(account token only)', which is ambiguous. It does not mention whether authentication is required, if it is read-only, what happens on missing paths, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a metadata retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no fluff, which is positive. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful; the brevity sacrifices critical information. It is not structured, but for the content it has, it is clean.

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 six parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what metadata is returned, how parameters interrelate, or when to use this tool. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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% and the description provides no parameter explanations. The required 'path' parameter is not mentioned, and the optional parameters (repo_id, repo_token, library_name, account_token, session_token) are ignored. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents without any idea what each parameter does.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get file metadata'. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file which presumably returns content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other file-related tools (e.g., list_directory) or mention the output structure, so it is not a 5.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only hint is '(account token only)' but it does not explain when account token is required or when to prefer this over read_file or list_directory.

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