Get file info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by naming the WebDAV PROPFIND mechanism and the returned metadata fields, but goes no further (no auth/rate caveats, no return-format detail). With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, and the returned-field list earns its place. The trailing 'This is the file-info tool' is somewhat redundant given the name, but overall it is tight.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields an agent would otherwise lack. Nothing critical for invocation appears missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the path argument including the empty-string-is-root case. The description adds nothing beyond this, so baseline 4 applies.

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 ('Get metadata') and resource ('one file or folder') and enumerates the returned fields. 'One file' distinguishes it from the sibling list_directory, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Placement of 'one file or folder' implies singular stat-ing versus a directory listing, and 'This is the file-info tool' reinforces intent. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. list_directory, read_file) are provided, leaving usage to inference.

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