files_get_file_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('retrieve') but doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or that no file content is downloaded. It adds minimal context beyond the obvious read nature.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 metadata getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and gives examples of the metadata fields. It doesn't detail return format or error handling, but the tool's simplicity lowers the burden, making this reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for file_id ('File whose metadata to fetch.'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents the parameter clearly, so a baseline score of 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 and resource: 'Retrieve metadata for a file' and lists example fields (name, size, owner, timestamps). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like files_download_file (content) or files_list_files (many files).

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 implies usage: when you need metadata for a single file. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using files_download_file to get content. It's clear context but no explicit guidance on when not to use.

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