fs_stat

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) but description adds limited detail about metadata only, no filesystem side-effect details, permission/error behavior.

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?

Single sentence, concise, no redundant content.

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?

Output schema exists, but description does not explain return values; sibling tools of file listing/existence; contextual invocation for stat metadata may be sufficient. Missing content read vs lstat details.

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 parameters have no descriptions; description adds no meaning. schema_description_coverage is 0%, so tool relies on parameter names 'platform', 'path', 'distro' only.

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?

Description uses specific action 'resolve' with target 'absolute Windows or WSL path without returning content'. Tool name 'fs_stat' suggests stat-like behavior. Distinguishes from siblings by stating no file content returned, but no explicit sibling comparison.

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?

Implied context: use to check path type/existence/metadata without reading content. No explicit when-vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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