get_file_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns (size, timestamps, type, permissions), which conveys a read-only behavior. It does not mention potential errors or platform-specific path handling, but the listed return fields offer strong expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key metadata fields without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description enumerates the expected return contents. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what will be returned, though it lacks details on error cases or whether directories are treated recursively.

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%: the single 'path' parameter is already described as a full path to a file or directory with an example. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('file or directory') with a clear scope ('detailed metadata'), and enumerates concrete metadata categories (size, timestamps, type, permissions). It is distinct from sibling tools like read_file (content) and list_directory (entries).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving metadata rather than file content or directory listings, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings or mention any exclusions. It provides a clear context cue ('detailed metadata') but no direct alternative comparisons.

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