get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the constraint of allowed directories but does not mention other behavioral traits such as no side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but lacks richer context.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second provides details, third gives usage guidance and constraint. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers purpose, details of metadata, when to use, and the constraint. For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, it is largely complete, though it could mention return format.

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?

Only one parameter 'path' with no description in schema (0% coverage). The description only says 'files or directories' without specifying format, absolute/relative, or examples, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 extracts comprehensive metadata and statistics for files or directories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file (content) or list_directory (listing entries). It specifies the details included: size, timestamps, permissions, entry type.

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 indicates the tool is for inspecting file properties without accessing content, and notes it only works in allowed directories. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though siblings imply differentiation.

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