get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states that it returns a string, but it does not mention error handling, whether the file must exist, permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a no-annotation tool.

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 concise and well-structured with Args/Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about path conventions, error behaviors, and what 'basic information' entails. It is minimal for a tool with no annotations and a single parameter.

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 0%, and the description's 'Path to file' adds little beyond the parameter name. It does not specify absolute/relative path, accepted formats, or any constraints.

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 retrieves basic file information, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file'). It is distinct from sibling tools like copy_entire_file or search_and_replace, which perform different operations. However, it does not specify what 'basic information' includes, which limits precision.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or caveats. It simply states what it does without context on when it is appropriate.

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