ship

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. It does not mention permissions, side effects, overwrite semantics (despite the overwrite parameter), verification mechanics, or error behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. While it is terse, that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain overwrite behavior, the meaning of 'verified artifact', required permissions, or what the tool returns. An agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly based on this description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'artifact' and 'public directory' but does not map them to src/dest_dir or explain the overwrite flag. It adds essentially no value beyond the raw 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?

Description states a specific verb (copy) and resource (artifact) with a destination (public directory), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like render_markdown, count_pages, and verify_delivery. However, 'verified artifact' is vague without further explanation, so it is clear but not fully precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextual direction.

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