uploadFile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action ('Uploads') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the SSH host is unreachable), file size limits, or whether it overwrites existing files at the remote path. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (file upload over SSH, a mutation operation) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, which are essential for safe and effective use in this context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (hostAlias, localPath, remotePath). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Uploads') and the resource ('a local file to an SSH host'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'downloadFile' beyond the direction of file transfer, which would require mentioning the opposite operation for full distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like SSH connectivity (implied by 'SSH host'), compare with siblings like 'downloadFile' for reverse operations, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate over other file-related tools.

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