compose_cp

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

The description discloses that the tool reads/writes as the server's user and references SECURITY.md for security implications, adding context beyond annotations. It also mentions the same host exposure as file-path archive tools. However, it does not explicitly state overwrite behavior, which could be relevant given the destructiveHint=false annotation.

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 moderately long but well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a paragraph explaining constraints and unsupported cases, and then a bulleted list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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 parameter count of 8, required 2, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, constraints, parameter semantics, and return type. It also references security docs. It does not detail error handling, but the return type (returncode and stderr) implicitly covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing all 8 parameters with brief explanations in the 'args' section. It clarifies the source/dest format, index usage, all_containers flag, and defaults. The return type is also described. While not exhaustive, it provides sufficient meaning for an agent to use correctly.

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 starts with a clear statement 'Copy files/folders between a service container and the server host's filesystem.' It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like container-archive tools by explicitly stating that copying to stdout is unsupported and to use container-archive tools instead.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (copying between service container and host) and when not (copying to stdout, directing to container-archive tools). It also explains constraints such as 'Exactly one of source/dest is SERVICE:PATH' and notes that copying to stdout is unsupported.

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