upload_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important runtime behavior: per-file outcome reporting, unsupported files being skipped rather than erroring, and non-termination on individual file failures. It does not cover every edge case such as empty directories or permission errors, but the core behavioral traits are clearly surfaced.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the core action, the scoping rule, failure semantics, and the key alternative. Every clause adds value without repetition.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: it specifies the target, single parameter, error behavior, and relationship to upload_file. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is well documented as an absolute path inside the Hermes container. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Upload every supported file directly inside a directory') and contrasts itself with upload_file via 'Use this instead of calling upload_file in a loop,' making the distinction between sibling tools unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool over an alternative: 'Use this instead of calling upload_file in a loop.' It also sets expectations about skipping unsupported extensions and continuing after failures, which is exactly the contextual guidance needed for correct selection.

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