emacs_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get information' signals a read-only operation and lists several output dimensions, but it doesn't disclose the full return shape, error behavior, or whether symlinks/directories are supported. The 'etc.' leaves unspecified behavior.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes; the examples are useful.

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 one-parameter stat-like tool, the description is serviceable, but with no output schema it should spell out the return fields rather than ending in 'etc.' It also doesn't mention edge cases or whether it works on directories. Overall adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only parameter, path, is fully described in the schema ('File path to get info for'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about the path beyond that, landing at the baseline 3.

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 a specific operation ('Get information about a file') and gives concrete examples of the returned metadata (exists, readable, writable, size). It reads as distinct from sibling file operations like emacs_file_open and emacs_file_save, though it doesn't state that distinction explicitly.

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 the tool is for metadata lookups, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., emacs_buffer_read for content, emacs_file_open for opening). There are no exclusions or routing hints.

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