docker_cp_from

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Copy a file or directory' without mentioning important traits such as: recursive flag required for directories, potential overwrite behavior, failure modes, or permission implications. The description is too thin to give the agent a solid understanding of what happens during the 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?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and effectively communicates the primary purpose and direction. Excellent conciseness.

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 is relatively simple with 3 required and 2 optional parameters, and no output schema. The description plus schema covers most invocation details, but the description does not mention overwrite behavior or the fact that directories require recursive=true (though the schema notes it). This is a minor gap, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is high (80% of parameters have descriptions), so the schema already explains container, remote_path, local_path, and recursive. The description adds the high-level notion of 'file or directory' and the docker cp analogy, but does not add specific parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Thus a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Copy a file or directory from a Docker container to the local machine.' It also provides an analogy to `docker cp container:path local`, which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling `docker_cp_to` (reverse direction). This is unambiguous and distinct.

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 this tool: whenever you need to copy from a container to the local machine. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use docker_cp_to for the reverse'), but the directionality is obvious, and the sibling list shows `docker_cp_to` as the opposite operation. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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