Get File Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly adds value by listing specific return fields (size, creation time, etc.) and the scope constraint 'only works within allowed directories'. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second lists outputs, and the third adds scope. Ideal structure for quick comprehension.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, return details, and scope adequately. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or whether the path is absolute/relative, but overall it is sufficient for a simple metadata tool.

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%, and the description does not provide details about the 'path' parameter format, allowed values, or examples. The only additional hint is that it must be within allowed directories, which is insufficient to fully guide parameter usage.

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 (size, times, permissions, type) for a file or directory. It explicitly distinguishes from reading content by saying 'without reading the actual content', which differentiates it from siblings like `read_file`.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need file characteristics rather than content. It implicitly contrasts with content-reading tools, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it.

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