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 successfully explains that the tool is read-only and returns metadata, with no side effects mentioned. The mention of encoding detection consistency adds transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second adds a relevant detail about encoding detection. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 that there is no output schema, the description lists the specific metadata fields returned (size, encoding, line ending, indentation style, line count). It is complete for a simple metadata tool. Including consistency with read/edit adds useful context.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage hints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns detailed file metadata including size, encoding, line ending, indentation style, and line count. It uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource 'file metadata', distinguishing it from sibling tools like read and edit that handle content.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it uses the same encoding detection as read/edit, which hints at consistency but does not provide explicit context, exclusions, or when-not guidelines.

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