sd_get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool extracts metadata without full parsing, and the 'Returns' section details the exact output fields, making the tool's behavior transparent and setting expectations.

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 well-organized with clear headers (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns), making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value, and it remains concise despite covering multiple aspects.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, but the description goes beyond by explaining purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. It covers all necessary context for correct tool invocation without redundancy.

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 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter: 'file_path: Full path to the file (relative to /db) or just filename.' This adds crucial context beyond the bare schema, including path format and flexibility.

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's function: 'Get basic metadata for a single document file' and 'Extract basic TEI metadata from a document without full parsing.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sd_get_document_by_id and sd_get_raw_document_by_path, which likely provide full content.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit scenarios (after browsing, when needing title/date/ID) and the 'WHEN NOT TO USE' section names alternatives: 'For full document content → use get_document tools' and 'For multiple files at once → use browse then call this for each.' This gives clear guidance and differentiates from peers.

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