Get File Info

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description ('Get information') is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation — it does not disclose error behavior for missing files, whether project_path discovery from cwd has any side effects, or what operationally happens when the call executes.

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?

One short, grammatically complete sentence with zero wasted words and the key action front-loaded. The terseness is a content-completeness issue, not a conciseness defect — for a simple 2-parameter tool this is appropriately sized.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value documentation, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the structured data carries much of the burden. However, the description provides almost no situational context: it cannot help an agent distinguish this file-info tool from node/asset/project info siblings, and it leaves the meaning of 'information' undefined. Given the low complexity and rich accompanying schema, a minimal description is viable, but this one sits at the edge of adequacy.

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 description coverage is 100%: file_path is documented as 'Path to the file' and project_path as 'Optional project root (defaults to discovery from cwd)'. Since the schema fully documents both parameters, the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it merely restates the file concept already covered by file_path.

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 identifies the resource ('a file'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, 'information about a file' is generic and provides no specifics about what kind of information is returned. Among siblings like godot_get_node_info, godot_get_project_info, and godot_get_asset_info, the description does not differentiate this tool from its peers — the name itself carries most of the disambiguating weight.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With roughly 35 siblings including several other 'get_*_info' tools, the description gives no conditions, exclusions, or hints about which tool fits which scenario. An agent must infer usage entirely from the parameter schema and name.

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