transfer_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that uploads require confirmation as a write operation, but omits other behaviors such as overwrite policy, authentication requirements, size limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a complete behavioral picture.

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, with a bulleted list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and parameter list. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly better structured with headings.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown but present). The description covers all parameters but lacks prerequisites, error cases, or behavioral notes beyond the confirmation requirement. It is adequate for simple usage but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains all five parameters: server (Chinese name), direction (upload/download), local and remote paths, and confirmed (write confirmation). This adds critical meaning not present in the schema, though it could be more precise (e.g., expected formats).

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 '在本地和服务器之间传输文件（SFTP）' which translates to 'Transfer files between local and server (SFTP).' This specifies a specific verb, resource, and protocol, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like exec_command or list_servers that are not for file transfer.

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 parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly indicates use for file transfers via SFTP, but does not mention exclusions or conditions like when not to use it or compare with sibling tools.

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