copy_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'copy a file' without revealing overwrite behavior, metadata handling, error cases, or whether the operation is safe/unsafe. The schema's mention of parent folder creation is not in the description, so the description adds no behavioral context.

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, which is concise, but it merely restates the tool name and offers no additional value. It is front-loaded with the verb but is too short to earn its place as a helpful supplement – borderline under-specified.

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?

Even for a simple file operation, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values (though output schema exists), error conditions, idempotency, or side effects like overwriting. The 2 required params and lack of annotations demand richer context, which 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (src and dst). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3. It neither enriches nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 resource (file) with a destination, making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_file' or differentiate copying vs. moving, losing a point for lack of distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as move_file, write_file, or append_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals to help the agent select it appropriately.

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