file_transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses supported file types, size limit, and special download behavior, but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if a file already exists. More detail would improve transparency.

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 concise: two sentences efficiently cover purpose, constraints, and a special use case. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, simple enum action, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers actions, remote path, local path optionality, file types, and size. It could mention that 'list' returns a directory listing, but that is implied by the enum.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the special case for download without local_path (returns content) and the size limit, which are not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool's purpose: to upload, download, or list files on an OpenClaw server via SSH. It specifies supported file types (text and binary), size limit (10MB), and a special behavior for download without local_path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which are mostly for running code or home automation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (SSH file transfers) and gives a specific guideline for 'download' without local_path. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, though the sibling tools are quite different.

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