cura_path_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a real boundary disclosure — 'Does not return file contents' — which prevents the agent from misusing this as a file-read tool, plus the specific fields it does surface.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and inspected attributes front-loaded and the negative constraint placed last where it reads as a qualifier.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. For a one-parameter read-only inspection tool, nothing further is needed for correct invocation.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It specifies 'one absolute path', which conveys both the cardinality and the path format constraint the schema leaves implicit.

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?

Specific verb (Inspect) plus resource (one absolute path) and an enumeration of exactly what is checked (existence, type, readability, resolved path, OS error). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling cura_inspect, which leaves an ambiguity the agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 phrase 'from Cura itself' implies the tool operates inside Cura's environment rather than the host, but no condition for choosing this over cura_inspect or load_cura_file is stated. No when-not guidance and no prerequisites are given.

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