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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and recommendations but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It's front-loaded with key actions ('analyze', 'get') and avoids any redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of file analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'chunking recommendations' entail, the format of the analysis results, or how this tool differs from other file-related siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('filePath' and 'sheet') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as file format constraints or chunking criteria, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('analyze', 'get') and resources ('file size', 'chunking recommendations'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'data_profile' that might also provide file information, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'read_file', 'data_profile', 'get_headers'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'get_file_info', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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