jfrog_get_item_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'one file or folder' scoping constraint, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what 'metadata' includes, return format, or any potential side effects, though none are expected given read-only annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple read-only tool with a complete input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the exact scope ('one file or folder') and purpose. It could be more explicit about what metadata is returned, but the output schema likely covers that, so missing detail is acceptable.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully explains both parameters (repo_key and path) with constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so baseline 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata for one JFrog file or folder', which defines the tool's scope. It differentiates from list-like siblings by specifying 'one', but does not explicitly contrast with similarly focused tools like jfrog_get_item_properties or jfrog_get_item_stats, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jfrog_get_item_properties or jfrog_get_item_stats. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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