file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful output behavior — hashing, entropy measurement, and detection of data hidden after JPEG/PNG/PDF end markers. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, nor does it clarify how the four input sources relate, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentence with the most distinctive capability (appended-data detection) front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but no words are wasted.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should do more. It lists some returned fields but omits the return structure, the meaning of the four input parameters, and any safety profile for a tool that reads raw file bytes.

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 0% across four parameters (ref, part, image, local_path), and the description says nothing about any of them. It does not explain that these are alternative ways to point at the target file, so the agent gets no help selecting the right input.

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 names the specific outputs (file type, SHA1/MD5/SHA256, entropy, appended data past end markers), which makes the tool's function clear even without an explicit verb. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like stat, exif, or strings that also inspect a file.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as stat or exif that overlap with file inspection. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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