phabricator_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata including a download URI and notes it's the only method returning URIs. It could mention error cases or authorization needs, but the description is fairly transparent.

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, two sentences, with key information front-loaded: purpose, key output, usage condition, and unique aspect. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the key returned fields (name, size, MIME type, URI) and mentions download use. It covers the essential information for a file info tool, but could mention if additional fields exist or response format.

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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds 'Provide at least one of id or phid', which clarifies the mutual dependency and adds value beyond the schema.

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 tool gets metadata (name, size, MIME type, URI) and mentions downloading via the URI. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_search and file_upload by specifying it's for a single file's info and uses the file.info Conduit method.

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?

It provides a clear usage guideline: 'Provide at least one of id or phid'. It also advises using the returned URI to download. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of siblings makes it clear.

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