get_file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by stating no content is downloaded, documenting the share-release restriction, and enumerating failure modes (path not released, malformed path, not found, auth/network errors). The 'permissions letters of the technical account' note is a useful caveat, though the description does not cover pagination or rate behavior, which is minor for a single-item metadata read.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, preference rule, then Parameters/Returns/Errors sections that make it scannable. The leading 'Levuvo Nextcloud MCP v0.5.3 - ' banner and the repeated 'Get file info' title restatement are wasted tokens, and the Returns list partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the returns list is a bonus rather than a requirement, and error semantics plus the path-rejection rules fill in everything else an agent needs to call this single-parameter read tool correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the path must be a configured share or lie below a shared folder. It restates the required-path fact, which is redundant, but the share-scoping constraint is genuinely extra information.

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 and resource (get the metadata of one shared file or folder) and immediately bounds it with 'without downloading its content', which cleanly separates it from read_file. An agent can pick between this and the sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (read_file) and the exact condition that should route the agent here: when only type, size, modification date or permissions are needed. That is a concrete when-to-use rule rather than implied usage.

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