file_info

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: what fields are reported, that symlink metadata describes the link rather than its target, and the leading-'/' path rule under a filesystem-root workspace. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and each following sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant caveat (hash contract, symlink semantics, path form). No filler or repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does list the reported fields and grants the edge-case semantics, which is nearly enough for a one-parameter metadata tool. It never sketches the overall shape of the response (e.g., keys for non-text files or missing paths), so a gap remains.

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 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate; it partly does by explaining path normalization ('the reported path keeps its leading / so it is exactly the absolute path'). It still doesn't clarify whether the input path may be relative or is resolved against the workspace, leaving a gap.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb plus resource ('Report metadata for one path') and enumerates the payload (hash, encoding, newline for text), which cleanly separates it from siblings like file_read or directory_list. An agent can tell immediately that this is a stat-style call, not a content read.

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?

States 'Read-only' and links the tool to a concrete workflow: 'The content_hash is what the guarded mutating tools accept as expected_hash', which effectively tells the caller when this tool is needed (before a guarded mutation). It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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