get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses useful behaviors like the optional host_name defaulting to the configured host and the requirement for an absolute path. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behaviors such as missing files or inaccessible paths.

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 compact and well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple two-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It concisely covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return value highlights, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides only titles with no descriptions (0% schema coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It clarifies that 'path' must be an absolute remote path and that 'host_name' comes from SSH_HOSTS config and defaults when omitted, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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' plus the resource 'detailed metadata of a remote file or directory,' making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file and list_directory by focusing on metadata rather than content or 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 purpose clearly implies when to use the tool (whenever metadata is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the description alone.

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