Get local file info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the tool does not modify, and the description's "without modifying it" merely restates that. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond the annotation – it does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, symlink behavior, or output format. With annotations present, this is a minimal contribution.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It includes the core action, the resource scope, and the safety trait in six words, every part contributing to understanding without repetition of the title.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the path's scope and safety. However, it does not mention what metadata fields are returned, error conditions (e.g., file not found), or whether paths must be absolute. For a read-only metadata tool, this may be acceptable, but it leaves some gaps for an agent deciding between siblings.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the path parameter. It adds meaningful semantics by specifying that the path refers to a "local file or directory", distinguishing it from remote paths and clarifying that both files and directories are acceptable. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 action: "Get metadata about a local file or directory without modifying it." It uses a specific verb (Get), resource (metadata about a local file or directory), and explicitly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing "local" and "without modifying", which distinguishes it from remote_link_status, read_file, and 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 implies when to use the tool (when metadata of a local file/directory is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say "use list_directory for directory contents" or "use read_file for content", leaving the choice to inference from the word "metadata".

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