remote_stat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially does so by enumerating the returned attributes, which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose failure semantics (does a nonexistent path return a negative result or an error?), permission requirements, or symlink handling.

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 that states purpose and enumerates returned attributes with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 trivial single-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient, and listing the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema. The remaining gap is the undefined behavior when the path does not exist or is inaccessible, which an agent would need to know to interpret results.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema already documents it; the description only implicitly reinforces that the path refers to the remote host. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documentation work.

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 states a specific verb-plus-resource: checking whether a remote file or directory exists and returning its attributes (type, size, modification time, permissions). This naturally separates it from remote_read (which fetches contents) and remote_list (which enumerates a directory), though no sibling is named 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as remote_list or remote_read for related metadata needs. The intended use is only inferable from the purpose statement itself.

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