上传目录

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond the annotations: ok=true signals only that the workflow finished, and status/failed/indeterminate must be inspected, with no blanket retry on indeterminate. That directly explains the consequence of non-idempotency rather than restating it.

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 with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the critical result-checking caveat immediately follows. Every clause carries weight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still supplies the key interpretation rule for that output (status/failed/indeterminate). With full schema coverage and annotations present, only selection guidance vs. siblings is missing.

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 all four parameters (server, overwrite, local_path, remote_path) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('逐项上传本地目录'), and the word '逐项' (item by item) distinguishes it from a single-file upload. It does not explicitly name upload_file or download_dir as siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Guidance is about interpreting results and retry behavior ('结果不确定时不得整体重试'), not about when to choose this tool over upload_file or download_dir. Useful, but it is result-handling advice rather than selection guidance, so usage routing is only implied.

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