get_file_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not that it is a read-only operation, what permissions or path scope (local vs. remote node) apply, what happens on a missing path, or what unit the size is returned in.

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?

Three words with zero padding are maximally concise and front-loaded, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, so it cannot score above the midpoint.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should have explained the return value (bytes, human-readable string, per-file vs. total), and with no annotations the safety profile is also unstated. For a one-parameter file tool the definition is too thin to be self-sufficient.

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 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate and does not. It adds no information about path format (absolute vs. relative), scope, or whether directories are accepted.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Get file size'), so the operation is identifiable. However, it is essentially the tool name restated with spaces and offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as check_file, get_file_content, or list_files.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other file-related siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether the path must exist locally). No guidance is misleading, but none is given.

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