fidelitycopy_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is deterministic, computes source/output hashes, and returns PASS only when the selected mode proves fidelity — real behavioral value. But it omits the failure state (FAIL?), whether it persists a receipt as a side effect, and any permission or rate considerations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly domain-jargon-heavy (FidelityCopy, PASS) but economical and appropriately sized for the information given.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a nested CopyRoom object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain what a receipt contains or how failure is signaled, nor which modes need which inputs. Since no output schema exists, more return-value context would have been expected.

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 all 11 parameters, including the mutually exclusive source/output variants and the mode enum, are documented in the schema. The description only refers obliquely to 'the selected mode' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (a deterministic FidelityCopy receipt) and clarifies the core behavior of hashing source/output and returning PASS. It distinguishes itself conceptually from generic copy tools by framing itself as a verification receipt generator, though it never names sibling alternatives like fidelitypass_verify_copy or copypass_run.

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 phrasing 'AI may request the copy, but this tool computes...' implies the tool is invoked after a copy operation to verify it, giving implied context. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling verification tools (fidelitypass_verify_copy, copypass_run/status) that an agent would need to choose between.

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