Inspect local path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that it checks existence and returns metadata, but it does not disclose not-found behavior, symlink resolution, or whether the returned metadata is stat-like.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every phrase ('exists', 'detailed metadata', 'symbolic-link') earns its place.

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, one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and result type. The main gap is the lack of an output schema or explanation of what happens when the path does not exist, but the overall tool complexity is low enough that this is still reasonably complete.

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?

The schema provides no parameter description, so the description's mention of 'local path' and 'file, folder, or symbolic-link' adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type. It stops short of specifying accepted formats like absolute vs relative paths, but for a single obvious parameter it is adequately clarifying.

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 ('Check whether') and a concrete resource ('local path'), and names the exact result: detailed file, folder, or symbolic-link metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_directory or read_file by focusing on path existence and metadata rather than contents.

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 usage context is implied: it is for inspecting whether a local path exists and retrieving metadata. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when list_directory or file_operation 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.