opspilot_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that uploads require approval and are restricted to a catalog allowlist, which is useful. However, it omits the request lifecycle (asynchronous? how to check status?), the return value, and any side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that quickly communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though the brevity sacrifices important operational details that are penalized in other dimensions.

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 approval workflow, three untrusted parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how the request approval process works, what happens after submission, what allowed files are, or how content is interpreted, leaving the agent without enough context for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. The parameters host_alias, path, and content are only known by name; no meaning, format, or relationship to the approval process is provided.

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 a specific action: 'Request an approved upload' to a 'catalog-allowlisted remote file'. The verb 'request' plus the resource and allowlist constraint makes the purpose distinct from siblings like opspilot_write_file, which likely implies a direct write.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opspilot_write_file or opspilot_get_request. The description implies an approval workflow but does not explain conditions, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is appropriate.

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