file_stats

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

The description lists the statistics produced and implies a read-only analysis, but with no annotations it does not disclose traversal behavior, handling of permission errors, or whether the analysis is recursive. The max_depth parameter hints at recursion, but the description itself leaves that implicit.

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 compact sentence with a colon-separated list. The action and target are front-loaded, and every listed item adds useful information without 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?

The tool is low-complexity and the schema covers both parameters, so the listed output types are helpful. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could still say more about return shape, recursion behavior, or failure conditions to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both dir_path and max_depth. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 states a clear action ('Analyze a directory') and enumerates concrete outputs: total files, total size, file count by extension, largest files, and newest/oldest files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dir_tree or file_search, which serve different structural or search purposes.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor are any alternatives mentioned. The only implied usage is analyzing a directory, but no exclusions or selection conditions are provided.

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