Get file metadata

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

The description adds a list of returned metadata fields (size, type, timestamps, storage class) beyond what annotations declare. However, the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover safety, and the description does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., not-found behavior, permission requirements). It provides modest added context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, tightly written, front-loaded with the primary action and clarifying scope. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple read-only metadata tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is sufficient. It lists key metadata attributes and the required context (bucketName). It slightly lacks behavioral expectations like error handling or return format, but the simplicity of the tool and rich schema make it adequately complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'by its object key' and 'Requires the drive', which loosely aligns with the schema, but it does not add new meaning beyond the already detailed schema descriptions for objectKey and bucketName. The schema carries the full parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed metadata for a single file or object' with specific attributes (size, type, timestamps, storage class). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_tags (tags only) and list_files (multiple files), and the 'by its object key' qualifier clarifies the access method.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for a single file/object, requiring the object key and the drive (bucketName). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single' scope and reference to the drive give enough guidance. The sibling tool names (e.g., list_files, search_files) are implicitly differentiated.

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