copy_file_code

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 fails to mention overwrite semantics (as controlled by the 'overwrite' parameter), whether directories are copied recursively, permissions requirements, or error handling. The single sentence only restates the basic operation without detailing side effects or limitations.

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, clear sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action 'copy' and specifies the key object types. This is an appropriately sized and efficiently structured description, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical operational details such as directory recursion behavior, the consequence of overwrite=false when the destination exists, and whether the operation preserves metadata. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for safe and correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the useful context that the tool can copy 'a file or directory', which clarifies the source and destination types. However, it does not elaborate on overwrite behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the marginal added value is modest.

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' with a clear resource 'file or directory' and destination 'another location'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool move_file_code, which relocates rather than duplicates. This unambiguously conveys the core operation.

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 like move_file_code. It does not mention exclusions or conditions such as copying vs. moving, when overwrite is appropriate, or whether it works across file systems. Users must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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