runninghub_upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return value (fileName) and the downstream wiring into fieldValue, but says nothing about size/format limits, overwrite behavior, authentication needs, or failure modes for an upload (a write) operation.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste, front-loading the action and return value before the downstream integration hint. Every sentence earns 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how the result is consumed. It falls short of full completeness only on operational limits and error behavior.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents filePath as an absolute local path. The description adds only the broad category of accepted file types, which is marginal beyond the structured field, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (上传/upload) and resource (本地文件 - local image/video/audio/archive), and explicitly names the return value (fileName). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling runninghub_download_file by scoping to local-file-to-server 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?

It gives clear usage context: upload first, then place the returned fileName into fieldValue for workflow/AI app image, audio, and video node parameters. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., download_file) or state exclusions such as file-size or format limits.

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