Inspect a path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's added value is the disclosure that symlinks are resolved to the real path. It says nothing about error handling for nonexistent or permission-denied paths, which is the remaining behavioral 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that declares the operation and enumerates return fields with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 present, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and notes real-path resolution. It is nearly complete for a trivial one-parameter read tool; only failure-mode behavior is absent.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself defining "Absolute path or path relative to $HOME." The description adds no path syntax, tilde handling, or edge-case guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb ("Return stat information") applied to a specific resource (file, directory or symlink), plus an enumeration of the returned fields (size, permissions, timestamps, resolved real path). It does not name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_dir or read_file, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of "stat information" suggests metadata inspection as opposed to content reading, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of list_dir/read_file, and no note about behavior on missing paths.

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