get_file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details about path normalization, relative path risks, and what metadata is returned. No destructive behavior is implied, and no contradictions exist.

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 thorough but somewhat verbose, with repeated emphasis on absolute paths and multiple sections. It could be more concise by integrating the path guidance once. However, the bulleted list of metadata aids readability.

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?

Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a list of metadata fields) and how to invoke it. It also covers limitations (allowed directories, path normalization) that are critical for correct usage.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by clearly indicating that the parameter is a file path, and gives extensive guidance on using absolute paths, path normalization, and the fact that relative or tilde paths may fail. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve detailed metadata about a file or directory' and lists specific metadata fields like size, times, permissions, lineCount, sheets, etc. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings that read content (read_file) or list entries (list_directory).

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 important usage guidelines such as 'Only works within allowed directories' and advises using absolute paths for reliability. It also mentions that the command can be referenced as 'DC: ...'. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like read_file or list_directory for specific use cases.

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