files_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses no token cost from the body, local execution, and no auth or rate limits, and enumerates exactly what fields are returned. It does not cover error behavior or edge cases (e.g., missing/invalid IDs), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core benefit and the body-cost rationale before the detail. The field enumeration, behavioral traits, usage rule, and parameter note each contribute, though the field list is dense enough that it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does by listing tags, size, est_tokens, history depth, related ids, backlinks, project, folder, and last edited. Cost, auth, and usage context are also covered, leaving it essentially complete for a single-parameter metadata tool.

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 parameter is already documented, and the description mostly restates it ('id' must be a valid integer file ID). The only added nuance is the 'integer' constraint versus the schema's declared type 'number', which is marginal value over the 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 specific verb and resource — 'Return everything ABOUT a file without pulling its content' — with the crucial scope boundary (metadata, not body) front-loaded. It clearly distinguishes itself from files_read and the other chained siblings, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 names when to use it ('when you'd otherwise chain files_read + tags_list + files_get_history + files_find_related') and the decision it supports ('just to decide whether to actually read the file'). The alternative tools and the condition selecting this one are both spelled out.

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