Inspect File Metadata

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's job is to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds that metadata is 'privacy-safe' and explicitly excludes GPS coordinates, and mentions the specific data extracted for images and audio. This goes beyond the general safety profile and provides useful behavioral details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes concrete details without redundancy. It avoids repetition of annotation information and is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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 simple metadata-inspection tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior (EXIF/ID3 fields) and privacy exclusions. It does not explicitly mention the response format, but the 'response_format' parameter handles that. The lack of an output schema makes the description's explanation of return content sufficient.

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 50% coverage: 'file' is described (full path to inspect), and 'response_format' has an enum but no description. The tool description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. However, the schema descriptions are self-explanatory for 'file' and the enum values for 'response_format' are clear, so the lack of description compensation is not critical.

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 the tool inspects a file and returns metadata, with specific details for images (EXIF: date, camera, dimensions) and audio (ID3: artist, album, title). It explicitly notes privacy-safe behavior and excludes GPS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or batch_read_files, which handle content rather than metadata.

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: use this tool when you need metadata about a file, not its contents. It clearly states what it does and what it excludes, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. While siblings like organize tools are obviously different, the description lacks an explicit routing statement like 'for file contents, use read_file.'

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