get_document_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'metadata and statistics' without specifying what fields are returned (e.g., file size, author, creation date), whether the file must exist, or how errors are handled. The presence of an output schema doesn't excuse the lack of behavioral context in the free-text description.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could benefit from additional context without being verbose.

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 one required parameter and an output schema, the description might be minimally sufficient, but it lacks prerequisites, error cases, or elaboration on what 'metadata and statistics' includes. For a tool that likely operates on various document types, more detail would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%—the 'file_path' parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata and statistics from an existing document', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_document' (content reading) and 'get_docx_paragraphs' (structural elements). It tells the agent exactly what the tool retrieves.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., file existence, required permissions) or scenarios where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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