Storage File Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only that the target may be a file or a directory; it does not say whether a missing path errors or returns empty, whether it follows symlinks, or what permissions are required for Oceanum storage. For a bare read tool this leaves notable gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core verb and resource lead the sentence, and nothing is repeated from the title or restated redundantly.

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 tool is simple: one required path parameter and an output schema that already documents the returned metadata fields, so the description need not explain return values. It is largely complete for such a low-complexity read operation, though it omits error behavior on nonexistent paths.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Path to inspect.'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format examples, accepted path prefixes, or relative-vs-absolute semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 metadata about a file or directory in Oceanum storage.' An agent can distinguish it from storage_read_file, storage_list_files and storage_write_file because it returns metadata rather than content or listings. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings or the info-only scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over storage_file_exists (existence check) or storage_list_files (enumerate a directory). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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