File Info

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does little: it implies a read-only inspection but never states it, and omits symlink handling, error behavior for missing paths, and whether large directories are traversed. The enumerated return fields add some value, but the behavioral gaps are substantial for an unannotated tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned attributes, with no filler. Slightly dense list phrasing but nothing wasted.

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 return values needn't be explained, and the tool is low-complexity with one parameter. However, without annotations or usage guidance, the description leaves unresolved the read-only nature, error cases, and which sibling to prefer for neighboring needs like listing directory entries.

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 0% for the single required `path` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that path may point to either a file or a directory, which adds meaning beyond the bare string type, but it says nothing about whether the path is workspace-relative or absolute.

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 ("Get") and resource (metadata/line count/permissions/size) for a file or directory. An agent can differentiate it from read_file (contents) and list_directory (enumeration) by the returned attributes, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this when you need attributes rather than contents. There is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative such as read_file or list_directory, and no statement about behavior on nonexistent paths.

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