查看文件信息

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by enumerating the exact fields returned and stating that file content is omitted. This is particularly useful since there is no output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the action, the target resource, and the critical exclusion. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently lists the return fields and notes the content exclusion. It could optionally mention error behavior or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the read-only nature and annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter documentation including format examples and case-insensitivity. The description's reference to '标识码' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly specifies a read-only 'view' operation for file metadata (name, size, checksum, download link, retention time) and explicitly distinguishes itself from content-fetching by stating it does not return file content. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope that differentiates it from sibling tools like download_file.

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 clearly implies that this tool is for metadata retrieval when file content is not needed, and the explicit 'does not return file content' provides a clear when-not-to-use. However, it does not name specific alternative tools like download_file, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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