file_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only semantics, that it does not read content, how fields like last_writer are determined, and that missing files are reported rather than causing an error. It also flags the strict mode limitation, adding valuable context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but tightly packed. It front-loads the core purpose, then details outputs, then gives usage guidance and exclusions. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no verbiage or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics, which it does thoroughly by defining each field. It also covers edge cases (missing files), usage context (avoiding blind re-reads, pairing with read_file), and a key limitation (strict mode). Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'paths' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states (absolute paths, file:// URIs, or workspace-relative paths), but it does reinforce that the tool reports per path without introducing ambiguity.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: "Lightweight, read-only 'did this file change under me?' check." It enumerates exact outputs (git_dirty, changed_since_plumb_wrote, last_writer, mtime, size) and explicitly notes it does not read content, distinguishing it from read_file and similar siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use before re-editing a file you read or wrote earlier to confirm your view is still current, instead of a blind re-read." It also names an alternative (read_file) and states when not to rely on it: "it does not satisfy strict mode's read-before-edit requirement."

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