Datei-Metadaten

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

The description reveals that it uses mdls under the hood and that omitting attributes returns everything, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It notes the read-only nature ('liest') implicitly. However, no annotations are present, and it doesn't disclose error behavior for nonexistent files, non-indexed locations, or what happens when attributes are unavailable.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and efficiency. The example attribute names embedded in the description are helpful and concise.

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?

For a simple read tool with 2 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what's needed: what it reads, how attribute filtering works, and the default behavior. The behavior is fully specified given the schema coverage, though it could mention that results depend on Spotlight indexing availability.

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 both parameters well-documented in the schema itself (path as absolute file path, attributes as array of attribute names with examples). The description adds a small clarification that omitting attributes returns all metadata, slightly augmenting the schema meaning but not substantially beyond it.

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 the verb (reads/Liest), the resource (Spotlight-indexed file metadata via mdls), and the behavior (all attributes by default, named subset otherwise). It's specific and distinguishable from spotlight_search, the sibling that performs searches rather than reading metadata for a given path.

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 explains the attribute filtering behavior (all vs. specific named attributes) which informs usage, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over spotlight_search or what kind of use cases it serves. The tool itself is self-evident for reading metadata, but no exclusions or alternative-navigation guidance is provided.

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