File Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of returning size, type, dates, and permissions aligns but does not significantly add beyond what is implied. No contradictions.

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 concise, with a clear title and organized args/returns list. It front-loads the key action. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting is a bit verbose; could be tightened.

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 the simple tool with one param, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers essential return fields. It could mention that the output includes permissions or note any limitations (e.g., symlinks, special files).

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 100% and the schema already describes the path parameter. The description only repeats 'Path to the file/directory' without adding extra semantic detail like expected format or allowed 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Shows detailed information about a file/directory', identifying the specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fc_read_file (which reads content) and fc_list_directory (which lists contents).

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 use when you need metadata about a file/directory, but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives like fc_list_directory or fc_read_file. No exclusion criteria are given.

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