Describe a file, directory, or symlink path to retrieve its kind, size, modified time, and type-specific details like line counts for text files or image format.
Describe a path: kind (file, dir, symlink), size, modified time, line count for text files, image type for images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to describe; "." for the top. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by specifying the returned attributes (kind classification, line count for text, image type for images), which is the only place the return contract is documented since no output schema exists. It omits edge behavior such as what happens for a nonexistent path or whether symlinks are followed.
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?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields in a compact parenthetical list. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential return-field contract. The remaining gap is error/edge behavior (missing paths, symlink traversal, cost of line counting on large files), which an agent may need but is minor relative to overall completeness.
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% and the single 'path' parameter is documented in the schema including the '"." for the top' convention. The description adds no path semantics (relative vs absolute, symlink resolution) beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('a path') and enumerates exactly what is reported: kind, size, modified time, line count, image type. This makes it distinguishable from siblings like read (contents) and list (directory enumeration), though it never names those siblings to draw the contrast explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the metadata-inspection tool, but the description never says when to prefer it over read or list, nor any precondition such as the path existing. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.