seafile_copy

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 states the tool copies files/directories and returns an OperationResult, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, handles recursive copying for directories, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to scan and understand.

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's moderate complexity (copy operation with 3 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by Returns section mentioning OperationResult), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral details like permissions or overwrite behavior, which would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 100%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (repo_id, src_path, dst_path). The description adds minimal value by listing the parameters in the Args section, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states (e.g., path format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Copy a file or directory') and resource ('within a Seafile library'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like seafile_move (which moves rather than copies) and seafile_rename (which renames rather than copies). It precisely communicates what the tool does.

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 usage through the action described (copying within a library) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like seafile_move or seafile_upload_file. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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