upload_to_sd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'upload' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this overwrites existing files, what permissions are required, whether there are file size limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a write operation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 file upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like what happens on success/failure, whether files are overwritten, file size limitations, or expected response format. The combination of a write operation with minimal behavioral disclosure creates significant gaps.

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 fully documents all three parameters (filename, content, path). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as file format restrictions, content encoding requirements, or path validation rules.

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 action ('upload a file') and target resource ('to the CNC controller's SD card'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling operations like 'run_sd_file' or 'delete_sd_file' beyond the basic upload action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be used for related SD card operations (like listing or deleting files).

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