stat_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it gets metadata and returns a file metadata object, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it fails to mention behavior for missing paths, invalid backends, or potential side effects, which are important for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence for purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the front-loaded format aids quick comprehension.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 params, no enums), the description omits details about the returned 'File metadata object'—its fields or structure—and the valid backend values. Without an output schema, an agent lacks sufficient information to interpret results or handle errors, leaving significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides crucial parameter explanations: 'path: Path to get statistics for' and 'backend: Backend name to use (uses default backend if not specified).' This adds meaningful context beyond bare schema types, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get metadata/statistics for a file or directory,' providing a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file (content) and list_files (names), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 for retrieving file metadata but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternative tools for similar tasks, such as list_files for directory listings or read_file for content, leaving the selection partially to inference.

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