pathgrove_file_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds real value in spelling out what is returned for files versus directories and the conditional nature of the preview. It says nothing about behavior for nonexistent paths, permission-denied cases, or partial failures across multiple paths, which is where an agent would still be guessing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then a compact structured breakdown of returns. The 'Returns:' block is informative rather than filler, and there is no repetition, though it partially duplicates what the output schema already conveys.

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?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description's remaining burden is small and it meets most of it: scope, return shapes, and preview behavior are all covered. The missing piece is failure behavior for invalid or inaccessible paths in a batch call.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0%, although the schema does carry inline descriptions and numeric bounds for both fields. The description contributes one genuinely non-obvious semantic: preview content is only produced for text files when preview_lines > 0, which the schema does not state. It adds nothing about the 1-20 path limit or the batch semantics of passing multiple paths.

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 a specific verb and resource: get metadata plus optional content preview for specific files. It clearly separates metadata inspection from the search-oriented siblings (pathgrove_search, pathgrove_search_content), though it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting known paths rather than discovering them. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to the search siblings for the case where paths are not known.

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