push_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action as 'copy', but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether existing remote files are overwritten, whether directories are recursively copied, or whether any permissions are required. Such details are critical for a file transfer operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Copy a file or directory') and specifies the source and target. It contains no redundant or repetitive content, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 straightforward file transfer tool, the description covers the basic purpose and direction. However, with no annotations or output schema, it lacks crucial contextual details like overwrite semantics, error handling, and whether parent directories are automatically created. These omissions leave the description slightly incomplete for a production tool.

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%, with clear descriptions for localPath and remotePath. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It confirms file/directory support, which is also already noted in the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Copy') and clearly states both source (host machine) and destination (connected device), including support for files or directories. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_file (which copies in the opposite direction) and install_app (which handles APK installation).

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 implies usage for transferring files from host to device, which indirectly differentiates it from pull_file. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple transfer but lacks explicit guidance.

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