get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get detailed info' but does not disclose the read-only nature, error behavior for nonexistent paths, permissions required, or what specific details are returned. This is a significant gap for a read operation.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though it is so minimal that it risks under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 simple tool (1 param, output schema exists), the description still fails to provide enough context for correct tool selection and invocation. It lacks guidance on when to use this vs. siblings and does not clarify path construction or return expectations beyond what the output schema already covers.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain the 'path' parameter beyond implying it is the file/directory path. The format (absolute vs relative), encoding, or example value is missing, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 tool retrieves detailed information for a file or directory. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file_content (which reads content) and list_files (which lists entries), though it does not explicitly contrast with exists or is_dir.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to choose this tool over alternatives such as exists or get_directory_tree, nor does it specify any prerequisites or scenarios.

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