hpc_get_file_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that content is not fetched, which is useful, but omits error behavior for missing paths, symlink handling, and permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the purpose and metadata fields, with zero filler. It could be slightly more informative without bloat, but it is well-sized.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the description should ideally specify the return shape or error conditions for a missing/inaccessible path.

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% with the path parameter fully documented ('Absolute path on the cluster'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (file info) and enumerates the returned metadata fields (size, type, permissions, mtime). It distinguishes from read_file/head_file/tail_file by clause 'without reading content', though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 'without reading content' implicitly signals when to prefer this over read_file/head_file, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named.

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