file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Read-only' but does not specify whether symlinks are followed, what metadata fields are returned, or error behavior for nonexistent paths. This leaves important ambiguities for an agent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 an output schema, so return structure is covered. Given 1 parameter, low complexity, and clarity of purpose, the description is mostly adequate, but missing usage guidance and symlink behavior prevent full completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies that `path` refers to a file, directory, or symbolic link, but does not clarify path format (absolute/relative), allowed filesystems, or symlink resolution. Minimal added meaning over the schema's bare 'Path' title.

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 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'one file, directory, or symbolic link', clearly distinguishing from siblings like read_text_file (content) and list_directory (directory contents). The scope is precise and actionable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives is given. The read-only metadata focus implies usage for inspecting path properties without reading content, but exclusions or alternatives are not named.

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