fs_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 only states 'read-only,' which is a minimal safety signal, but it does not explain what data is returned, whether the call is expensive, or any side effects (though read-only implies none). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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—five words—with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key attribute ('read-only'). However, it is under-specified, which is a trade-off: conciseness is achieved but at the cost of clarity. Still, there is no fluff, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it could be more informative without losing brevity.

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 large sibling set (over 200 tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent has no idea what 'info' includes, what format it returns, or how it differs from fs_ls or fs_pwd. The tool is likely meant for general file-system statistics, but the description leaves too much to inference. A more explicit statement of scope and return value would be necessary for completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, so it does not detract from the score.

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 clear subject (file system) and indicates a read-only operation, but it does not specify what kind of information is provided (e.g., disk usage, mount points, inodes). It distinguishes from siblings like fs_ls and fs_pwd only by the generic 'info' label, which is vague. A specific verb or resource scope would clarify exactly what the tool returns.

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 offers no guidance on when to use fs_info versus the many file-system-related siblings (fs_ls, fs_pwd, nand_usage, usb_disk). It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only hint is 'read-only,' which implies safe inspection but does not help the agent decide between this and other read-only tools.

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