Get file or directory info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only' while adding non-redundant constraints: 'the path must already exist' and 'Returns the raw info object'. This goes beyond the annotation to inform error conditions and return format.

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 three short paragraphs, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is zero filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use, what it returns, the constraint that the path must exist, and how to handle multiple paths. No gaps remain.

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 a clear description for 'path' including an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, only the constraint that the path must exist, which is usage guidance rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('detailed metadata for one file or directory on the ZSpace NAS'), and explicitly contrasts with ls by mentioning 'more than the ls summary exposes'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('when you need more than the ls summary exposes') and when-not-to-use ('use zspace_ls to enumerate a directory, or zspace_search to locate an item first'), naming the exact alternative tools. No ambiguity.

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