File Copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only labels the operation as a write (写操作). It does not disclose overwrite behavior when the destination already exists, required permissions, cross-host/NAS session handling implied by the host/port/profile params, or any failure modes.

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?

A single short sentence that is fully front-loaded and wastes no words. However, its brevity is also its weakness, so it is efficient rather than exemplarily structured.

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?

For a write tool with zero annotation coverage and connection parameters (host/port/scheme/profile) implying remote NAS sessions, the description omits behavior an agent needs. The output schema covers return values, but the mutation semantics and session context remain unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the NAS connection params. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the 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?

States a specific verb (复制/copy) and resource (文件/file) plus the destination, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings like file_move or file_rename, which also relocate files, so the agent must infer the copy-vs-move distinction on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as file_move, file_rename, or file_upload. The agent gets no help deciding when file_copy is the right tool versus those siblings.

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