file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of transparency. It clarifies that it works for both files and directories and lists the types of metadata returned. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., nonexistent path) or whether it returns anything beyond those fields. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, listing the verb, resource, and key metadata fields.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description provides sufficient context for what the tool does and what metadata it returns. It lacks explicit return-structure details, but this is acceptable given the low complexity and the clear list of metadata fields.

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 has only one parameter ('path') with a description that largely mirrors the tool description ('Relative path to the file or directory'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema. It confirms the path can target a file or directory, but this is already in the schema description.

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') and resource ('metadata about a file or directory'), and explicitly lists the metadata fields (size, modification date, permissions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_read (content), file_write (writing), and file_list (listing).

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 usage context: when you need metadata rather than content or operations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough for a simple read-only tool. No explicit when-not guidance, but the scope is self-evident.

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