fs__get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states the tool returns metadata like size, times, permissions, and type, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly confirm no side effects or discuss authentication/rate limits, but the description is adequate for a simple info retrieval 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core action, return data, use case, and constraint. The description is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence adds value without wordiness.

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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and constraints adequately. It could mention return format or error states, but the tool is simple enough that the provided information is mostly complete for an agent.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'path' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the path format, absolute/relative expectations, or examples. It only mentions 'works within allowed directories,' which does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

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 retrieves detailed metadata for files or directories, using the verb 'Retrieve' and specifying the resource. It differentiates from siblings like fs__read_file (content reading) and fs__list_directory (listing), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use: 'perfect for understanding file characteristics without reading the actual content.' It also notes a constraint: 'Only works within allowed directories.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, but the context implies it.

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