Remote Stat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say whether the call fails on a missing path, whether it follows symlinks, whether it requires a live connection, or what 'metadata' comprises (size, mtime, type?). Only the read-only nature is weakly implied.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key scoping qualifier ('project-relative') front-loaded. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage leave too much unsaid. An agent cannot know what metadata fields come back or how failures present, which matters for a stat-style tool whose entire value is its return payload.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies that relative_path is relative to a project, which is useful, but never explains project_id or any path format/error semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('metadata for a project-relative remote path'), so the agent knows this is a stat/metadata lookup. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like remote_list, remote_read, or remote_search, which all operate on the same remote namespace.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus remote_list/remote_read/remote_search, nor any stated prerequisites such as requiring an established project connection. The only implied usage is 'you want metadata', which the agent must infer entirely.

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