get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states what it returns (size, creation time, permissions, type) and explicitly says it does not read content, implying a read-only behavior. It also discloses the allowed-directories restriction. However, it doesn't describe error behavior (e.g., nonexistent paths) or permission requirements, leaving minor gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and when/where it can be used. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: target type (file/directory), return details, and access restriction. It doesn't cover error handling or return format specifics, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 provides only a 'path' string with 0% description coverage. The description adds that the target can be a file or directory and that it must be within allowed directories, which is helpful. However, it doesn't specify path format (absolute vs relative) or whether trailing slashes matter, so the compensation is partial.

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 specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource: 'detailed metadata about a file or directory'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file (which reads content) and list_directory (which lists contents), 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?

It explicitly states the tool is for 'understanding file characteristics without reading the actual content', implying when to use it over content-reading tools. It also mentions 'Only works within allowed directories', providing a crucial constraint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context is clear.

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