upload_from_host

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 effectively describes key traits: the MCP server reads locally and transfers, file size limits (200MB), and the option to bypass upload. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions needed, or what happens on success/failure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: first states the action, second explains the mechanism, third sets constraints, and fourth provides alternatives. No wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, constraints, and alternatives. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the mutation nature of uploading files.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. 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 ('Upload a file'), resource ('from the host filesystem to the samples directory'), and purpose ('for analysis'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_file' and 'download_from_url' by specifying the direction and source of transfer.

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 this tool (uploading for analysis) versus alternatives (bypassing upload by referencing absolute paths in analysis tools like 'get_file_info', 'analyze_file', or 'run_tool'). It also mentions the maximum file size constraint (200MB).

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