Get File Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful access constraint ('Only works within allowed directories') and enumerates the returned metadata fields, which goes beyond the annotations but doesn't cover permissions/auth mechanics or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, then the directory restriction. Minor filler in 'This tool is perfect for' but overall tight and well ordered.

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 field detail is somewhat redundant, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema coverage on the sole parameter and no path-expression guidance, the definition leaves a gap an agent needs filled before calling correctly.

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%, so the schema gives no semantics for the lone 'path' parameter. The description mentions 'allowed directories' but never clarifies what the path should be relative to, whether it must be absolute, or the format expected—leaving the required parameter under-specified.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (metadata about a file or directory), and names exactly what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from read_file and list_directory siblings, which read content or enumerate entries rather than fetch metadata.

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 phrase 'for understanding file characteristics without reading the actual content' implicitly contrasts it with read_file, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, nor are alternatives named.

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