docker_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does it well: it discloses that destination files are overwritten, that confirm=true is required, and that host_path is sandboxed to an allowed folder. It stops short of saying what happens on missing source paths or error conditions, and return shape is covered by the output schema.

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 core operation and the confirm requirement are front-loaded in the first two clauses, followed by tightly packed semantics for direction, path constraints, and flags. No sentence is filler.

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 destructive, 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical risks (overwrite, confirmation, path sandboxing) and the ambiguous parameters. Error behavior and the meaning of 'host' are the only remaining gaps, and the output schema covers return values.

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, and it explains the non-obvious parameters: direction with explicit source->destination arrow mapping, host_path's allowed-folder restriction, keep_owner's '-a' behavior, and confirm. Only 'host' and 'container' remain unexplained, and those are largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy files between a container and the Docker host') and grounds it in the familiar 'docker cp' primitive. It is immediately distinguishable from the host-only siblings like server_file_move or server_file_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?

Gives clear conditions: use when moving files across the container/host boundary, and notes the confirm=true prerequisite and allowed-folder constraint. It does not explicitly route the agent to the host-file siblings when no container is involved, so usage is clear but without stated exclusions.

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