sassy_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states it returns metadata (not content), lists the specific metadata categories, and implies a read-only operation ('Get'). It does not mention error cases or access requirements, but for a simple read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a list of included metadata. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details. The line-break and bullet-like structure improves readability.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and simple read-only semantics, this description is sufficient. It covers the tool's scope (file/directory) and key output categories. It doesn't need to explain return values (output schema exists) or provide usage examples for such a straightforward operation.

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 has one parameter `path` with 0% description coverage. The description only refers to 'file/directory' in the purpose, implying path should be a filesystem path, but does not explain required format, whether it must exist, or any constraints. The description does not compensate for the sparse schema information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed file/directory metadata'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sassy_read_file (reads contents) and sassy_list_dir (lists directory entries). The inclusion of specific data types (size, timestamps, line count, Excel sheet info) reinforces this clarity.

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 description implies usage for metadata retrieval (vs. reading content), and the list of included fields suggests what it's good for. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer from the context. No exclusions or comparisons to sassy_read_file or sassy_list_dir are given.

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