get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. '探测' implies a read-only inspection rather than a mutation, and the enumerated metadata fields give a useful sense of behavior. Still, it does not explicitly confirm the file is unmodified, describe error/unsupported-type behavior, or clarify what happens when metadata is unavailable.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key output categories without redundancy or filler. Every part earns its place, and the '等' (etc.) safely signals that the list is non-exhaustive.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return-value categories but lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats. Given no annotations or output schema, it is adequate but not complete: an agent does not know about potential errors, default checksum behavior, or file-type limitations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds general context about what metadata is probed but does not clarify the include_checksum parameter or how the metadata list maps to the file_path input. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage without adding parameter-specific value.

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: '探测文件元信息' (probe file metadata), and lists concrete metadata dimensions (format, encoding, resolution, duration, bitrate, page count, sheet count). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are conversion or dependency-check operations rather than metadata inspection.

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?

Usage context is implied by the sibling list: this is the only read/inspection tool among converters, so an agent can infer it should be called to inspect files before conversion. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as unsupported file types.

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