Inspect local path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns 'detailed file, folder, or symbolic-link metadata,' which goes beyond the safety profile. However, it does not enumerate what fields are included (e.g., size, permissions), so some behavioral detail is missing.

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 18-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No superfluous words; every part earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It fails to specify what 'detailed metadata' includes, which is critical for the agent to interpret the response. Sibling tools like file_operation may overlap, but the description does not clarify the exact scope.

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% for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not explain the required format (absolute vs relative, shell expansion, trailing slashes, etc.) beyond the schema's type and length constraints. For a simple tool, more guidance on the path parameter is expected from the 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's purpose: checking existence and returning detailed metadata for files, folders, or symlinks. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('local path'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file (content) and list_directory (listing contents).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_directory or search_files. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or which sibling tools are better suited for different scenarios. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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