copy_from_windows

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this can overwrite. The description adds useful context not in the annotations — that binary files are supported and that the source lives in a staging folder — but says nothing about overwrite behavior at the destination, which is the main reason destructiveHint would be set.

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 tight sentences front-loaded with the action, followed by compact per-parameter notes. No redundancy and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter copy tool the description is nearly complete; the only real gap is destination-overwrite behavior, which is left to the destructiveHint annotation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'name' is explained as a bare name, sub-path, or full Windows path within the staging folder, and 'path' is tied to write_file's path rules. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.

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 both endpoints of the operation: copy a file from the Windows staging folder (including binary) to a path in WSL. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling copy_to_windows, which moves in the opposite direction.

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?

Implies the context clearly — use this when you made a file in the Windows staging folder and need it inside WSL — and the 'same rules as write_file' reference ties path semantics to a known sibling. It stops short of an explicit 'use copy_to_windows for the reverse' statement, but the direction is unambiguous.

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