获取文件信息

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

Annotations carry the safety profile, but readOnlyHint=false sits awkwardly against a description that reads as a pure query — an agent cannot tell whether the call has side effects. The description adds no behavioral context such as error behavior for missing paths, permission requirements, or remote transport/auth implications implied by openWorldHint=true.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and return payload come first. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry any operational framing.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return fields is redundant rather than necessary, and the low-complexity two-parameter signature is well covered by the schema. What is missing is routing guidance among the many siblings (read_text_preview, list_dir, download_file) and any error/missing-file behavior.

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 100%: both path (virtual absolute path, root semantics) and the optional server alias are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (返回) plus a specific resource (单个虚拟远程对象) and enumerates the returned attributes (类型、大小、UTC 修改时间). The word 单个 distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools (list_dir, list_servers), but no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly.

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 never says when to call this versus read_text_preview (content) or list_dir (listing). Usage is only inferable from the word 单个. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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