kali_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and behavior. It only restates the tool name in verb form and offers no details about overwrite behavior, directory creation, file permissions, or whether this is a write operation. The description adds zero behavioral context.

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 only five words, which is technically concise, but it is severely under-specified. It provides no more information than the tool name itself, so the brevity is not effective; it is simply a placeholder.

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 required parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what local_path, remote_path, and content represent, nor does it mention return values or edge cases. The description fails to make the tool usable for an agent.

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 schema has three required parameters (local_path, remote_path, content) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not mention or explain any of these parameters, leaving their meaning and relationships entirely unexplained. This is a complete failure to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('Upload file') and target ('on Kali'), clearly indicating the tool transfers a file to the Kali machine. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'kali_download' and 'target_upload_file' by naming Kali as the destination, though it lacks details about source path semantics.

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 such as ssh_session_upload_content, reverse_shell_upload_content, or target_upload_file. There are no use-case scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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