Copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the FS_READONLY requirement and recursive directory behavior. However, it does not mention whether an existing destination is overwritten, what happens on partial failure, or whether metadata is preserved, leaving notable gaps.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core operation and immediately adds the key modifier. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need less explanation. Yet as a mutating tool with no annotations, it lacks overwrite behavior, error semantics, and guidance distinguishing it from move, making the guidance incomplete for fully confident use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it adds meaning by explaining recursive=True controls directory copies and implies src/dst are paths. Still, it does not clarify destination semantics, path format, or any constraints beyond the 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?

States a specific verb-resource combination: 'Copy a file, or a directory if recursive=True.' This clearly distinguishes file vs. directory behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling move tool, so it misses the strongest sibling distinction.

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?

Provides a precondition ('Requires FS_READONLY=false') but no guidance about when to use copy versus move or other alternatives. There is no explanation of when copying is preferred over moving or searching.

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