everything_file_details

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: directory previews include item counts and listings, and text files can return the first N lines. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: a purpose sentence followed by short return/conditional bullets. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or tautological restatement of the tool name.

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 that an output schema is present and the annotations cover the safety profile, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers files, directories, and textual previews, which are the main paths through this tool.

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 description adds semantic meaning to preview_lines by explaining that it returns the first N lines for text files, and clarifies that paths refer to specific files/folders. The schema supplies the numeric constraints, so the description complements rather than merely repeats the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb-and-resource statement: 'Get detailed metadata and optional content preview for specific files.' It then enumerates exactly what is returned, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the sibling search/count tools.

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 communicates a clear context: use this when you have specific file or folder paths and want metadata or a preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'don't use for search,' but the 'for specific files' scope and the sibling tool names make the boundary obvious.

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