get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the document will not be opened, implying no editor state change. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or error behavior, but 'get metadata' is inherently read-oriented.

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 sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the key behavioral constraint ('without opening the document') is immediately included.

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?

The output schema presumably covers return values, so the description only needs to convey purpose and usage. It does that clearly, though path-format guidance and explicit differentiation from document-info tools are left implicit. Minor gaps for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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 schema has one parameter, file_path, with 0% description coverage. The description does not compensate by explaining path format, whether the file must already exist, or how the path is resolved. The parameter name is suggestive but the description adds no semantic detail.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get file metadata') and a distinguishing behavioral constraint ('without opening the document'), which clearly separates it from document-opening tools like open_document and get_document_info.

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?

Provides clear context: use this when you need file-level metadata and do not want to open the document. It does not name sibling alternatives or give explicit when-not guidance, but the usage intent is unambiguous.

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