oss-upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses crucial side effects and prerequisites: generated object names, prefix validation, credential environment variables, size cap, and return fields. It does not cover overwrite or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the rest is formatted as scannable bullets that map to parameters. Any redundancy, such as the repeated filename requirement, also carries the additional override/default information.

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?

For a tool with five unstructured optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides mutual exclusion rules, prerequisites, size constraints, naming, and return format—everything needed to call it 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 descriptions are 0% covered, but the tool description explains all five parameters: path semantics for local_file_path, UTF-8 vs binary for content/content_base64, the filename override rule, and the prefix default/validation.

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 first sentence names the exact operation and destination ('Upload a file to Aliyun OSS'), and the object-name rule (MD5(content) + extension under agents/) makes the tool's function unambiguous even in the absence of sibling tools.

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 explicitly requires exactly one source, tells when to prefer each source type, and states conditions such as filename being required for content/content_base64. The 100MB cap with 'large files use local_file_path' is a concrete when-to-use rule.

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