docker_cp_to

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 states the basic action and an analogy, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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. It conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about return behavior and edge cases. It only covers the basic copy operation and omits important context like the recursive flag requirement (though present in the schema) and prerequisites like the container needing to exist or run. This is incomplete for a Docker operation with multiple parameters.

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 high coverage (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that local_path can be a file or directory, which is not explicitly stated in the schema description. It also clarifies that remote_path is inside the container, reinforcing the schema's meaning.

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') and the target ('local file or directory into a Docker container'), making it specific and unambiguous. The analogy to 'docker cp local container:path' also helps distinguish it from the sibling tool docker_cp_from.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: copying local content into a container. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the directionality is implied by 'into a Docker container' and the analogy, so it's clear enough without being overly prescriptive.

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