syncnology_get_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 communicates that the operation is read-only via 'Get' and lists the returned metadata, but it does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or how pathological inputs (e.g., invalid paths) are handled.

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 a single, grammatically clean sentence that leads with the action, lists the key metadata, and specifies the target resource type. There is no redundant wording.

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?

With an output schema presumably covering the return fields, the description suffices for a simple single-parameter read tool. It covers purpose and parameter meaning, though edge-case behavior like errors or permission failures is not mentioned, leaving a minor gap.

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 only a bare 'path' string parameter with no description. The description adds that the path refers to a file or folder on the NAS, which gives context beyond the schema, but it lacks path format specifics, examples, or absolute/relative guidance.

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 'Get' with a clear resource 'metadata' and enumerates the exact metadata types (size, timestamps, permissions). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like syncnology_list_files, which lists files, and system_info, which covers the NAS overall.

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 implies a straightforward use case—retrieve metadata for a known path—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as needing the path to already exist.

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