everything_file_infoRead real-time file or folder metadata—size, creation/modification/access times, and directory status—for any path without relying on the Everything index; missing paths return a clear result.
读取某个路径的实时元数据（大小、创建/修改/访问时间、是否目录）。不经过 Everything 索引，路径不存在也会明确返回。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | 完整路径，例如 D:\\work\\report.docx |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it discloses real-time filesystem access, index bypass, and explicit handling for nonexistent paths. It does not describe permission requirements or error formats, but the main non-obvious behavioral traits are covered.
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 and front-loaded: it immediately states the action, then lists the returned metadata fields, then adds the important index-bypass and nonexistent-path behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.
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?
For a simple single-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, that access is real-time, that the Everything index is bypassed, and how nonexistent paths are handled. No significant context needed to call it correctly is missing.
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?
There is one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents the path parameter and gives an example path. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond indicating that the input is a path, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: reading real-time metadata of a path, with enumerated fields (size, creation/modification/access time, is-directory). It also distinguishes the tool from indexed siblings by explicitly saying it does not go through the Everything index.
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 gives clear usage context: use this when real-time filesystem metadata is needed and the Everything index should be bypassed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search, count, or reveal, but the index-bypass distinction provides practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.