copy_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('copy') but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it overwrites existing files at destinations, handles permissions or errors, requires specific access, or supports recursive copying for directories. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('copy'), making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a file operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., overwrite rules, error handling), output format, or integration with siblings like 'list_files' for path validation. For a mutation tool in a filesystem context, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 the 'operations' parameter with its structure. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying multiple items can be copied, which is already clear from the schema's array type. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 verb ('copy') and resource ('multiple specified files/directories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_items' or 'write_content', which would require mentioning that this creates duplicates rather than relocating or overwriting content.

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 scenarios like duplicating files for backup versus moving them with 'move_items', or how it differs from 'write_content' for creating new files. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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