everything_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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the type of data returned (Windows attributes, run count) and the need for a path, but it does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, whether the tool is a safe read-only operation, or dependencies like the Everything service running. This is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and key details (what it gets, for which path, using which tool). There is no wasted words or redundancy.

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 has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains the purpose and hints at the output content ('Windows attributes, run count') but does not specify the output format or behavior on invalid inputs. Given the lack of output schema, a slightly richer description would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a simple tool.

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 already provides a complete description for the single parameter 'path' ('Full path to the file or folder'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema contains.

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 and resource: 'Get file attributes' for 'a specific file path.' It also lists the types of information included ('Windows attributes, run count') and mentions the tool's context ('using Everything'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like everything_search (search for files) and everything_version (version info).

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 description implies usage: when you need file attributes for a given path. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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