appcrane_cp

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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears the burden. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: single hop, no container/GitHub round-trip, no inline size ceiling; exact file path mapping; return of SHA-256 and byte count; assurance that secrets are never returned; and path constraints.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and quickly adds crucial context. Every sentence provides value, though it is slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., path constraints repeated).

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter hints, return value, auth, and safety. No major gaps remain; it is fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% (all 5 parameters described in schema). The description adds some context (e.g., 'single hop') but largely reinforces schema details like path rules and encoding. Value added is marginal beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Copy/upload a file') and the target resource ('persistent /data volume on the host'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., appcrane_push_to_managed_app) by highlighting the lack of size ceiling and direct transfer, and lists aliases.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Right tool for multi-MB datasets, large fixtures, or anything where appcrane_push_to_managed_app's tool-arg ceiling would force chunking.' Also specifies prerequisites: 'App-admin or owner of the app required.'

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