sassy_file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds useful state disclosure (e.g., Excel files handled via openpyxl, directory counts of immediate children). It doesn't disclose any hidden side effects or permissions, but given the strong annotation coverage, the added detail is sufficient.

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 slightly long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and read-only nature, then detailing type-specific behaviors, and ending with usage guidance. Each sentence contributes unique information; no filler. It could be tightened (e.g., splitting into bullet points), but the density is appropriate for a tool with this much conditional output.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return types, but it goes further by describing edge cases (Excel files, directory counts) and usage context. It covers when to use, what to expect, and routes to alternatives, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further lookups.

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 a single 'path' parameter with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'path' refers to a file or directory path and details what metadata will be returned for that path, giving the parameter meaning beyond its bare type. It doesn't specify path format constraints (e.g., absolute vs relative), but it still adds substantial semantic value.

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 clearly states it is a read-only tool that returns JSON metadata for a path, enumerating the specific data (absolute path, type, size, timestamps, line counts, Excel sheet info, directory counts). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools sassy_list_dir and sassy_read_file, so an agent can easily tell it apart.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it to inspect a path before reading or editing it', and names two alternatives with their distinct purposes (sassy_list_dir for browsing directory entries, sassy_read_file for contents). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over siblings.

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