File information

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the successful behavior—returning size and SHA-256—but does not disclose what happens for missing files, non-text files, invalid project names, or path interpretation. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and output, making it instantly scannable for an agent.

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 is simple and has an output schema, which covers return values. However, the lack of parameter semantics and minimal usage guidance means the description alone is not fully sufficient for an agent to confidently and correctly invoke the tool in all cases.

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%, and the description does not explain the semantics, format, or relationship of 'project' and 'path'. It merely says 'an existing text file', which hints at path, but project remains unspecified. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('an existing text file'), and exact output ('size and SHA-256'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like read_file, which return content, and list_directory, which lists files.

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 phrase 'existing text file' implies when the tool is applicable: only for files that already exist and are text files. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_file or find_files, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions beyond existence.

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