Get File Properties (EVS)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=falce, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the EVS endpoint identity, the UI dialog it mirrors, and the fact that the endpoint fetches size and last-modifed date.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states the core action and endpoint, the second gives a UI-equivalence anchor, and the third gives the necessary pre-step. Every sentence earns its place and the important action comes first.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition is complete: it states what metadata is returned, where the path comes from, and how to discover it. The schema handles all parameter details, and annotations cover safety.

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%, and the schema already provides rich details for both path and deviceId, including path format examples and a caveat about bare root paths. The top-level description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('fetches') and resource ('metadata for a single backed-up fyle or folder'), and identifies the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_fyle_versions or download_fyle, but the metadata-focused scope makes its purpose clear.

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 tells the agent to run browse_folder or list_fyles first to discover the path, which is actionable pre-requisite guidance. It does not, however, provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-routing instructions among file-related siblings.

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