copy_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 discloses that the tool copies with metadata, supports overwrite and dry-run, and returns a JSON string. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwrite deleting destination) but these are implied by the overwrite parameter.

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 very concise: one sentence summarizing the action, followed by a structured Args and Returns block. Every sentence is necessary and earns its place. No redundant or vague text.

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 tool's simplicity (copy file with options), the description covers parameters and output reasonably well. The output schema existence is noted but not detailed. Missing error cases or exactly what 'metadata' includes, but overall adequate.

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 provides clear explanations for all four parameters: source, destination, overwrite, and dry_run. This adds value beyond the schema, though could include format expectations (e.g., absolute paths).

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 'Copy a file with metadata' and explicitly distinguishes from 'copy_directory' for directories. The verb 'copy' and resource 'file' are specific, and the sibling differentiation is explicit.

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 a clear when-not-to-use guideline: 'Directories require copy_directory.' However, it does not differentiate from 'move_file' or other file operations, which could cause confusion. The parameter descriptions (overwrite, dry_run) imply usage context.

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