get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., size, permissions, timestamps), whether the path must exist or if errors are handled, or what the return value looks like. The only behavioral hint is the path flexibility, which is already in 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently written, though it could benefit from specifying what 'detailed information' means. Still, it earns its place as a concise summary.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description leaves significant gaps. The agent does not know what 'detailed information' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'resolve_path' or 'list_directory'. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the return format and distinguishing behavior, which it does not.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description already documents the path parameter well (absolute, relative, ~). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond restating 'file or directory', which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Gets detailed information about a file or directory') which states the tool's core function. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'check_file_exists' or 'list_directory', and 'detailed information' is vague as to what specific data is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_directory', 'resolve_path', or 'check_file_exists'. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate use case.

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