get_file_metadata

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 hints at a safe, non-content read but never states read-only behavior, side effects, permission requirements, or error cases for a missing path. The 'safe' adjective is unelaborated.

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 tight sentence with the key differentiator front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the name.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description covers what the tool does and the key safety nuance. The remaining gap is path semantics, which is unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 0% for the single `path` parameter, so the description must compensate. It conveys only that the target is 'one file'; it does not say whether the path is absolute/relative, whether directories are accepted, or how the path is validated.

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+resource ('Return safe metadata for one file') and adds a scope qualifier ('without reading its contents') that separates it from read_text_file. It stops short of saying which metadata fields, so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 phrase 'without reading its contents' implies the case where contents are unwanted or unsafe to read, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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