copy_file

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that copying may overwrite an existing destination (with confirm=true) or that a destination might need confirmation, which is a key safety and behavior detail. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word adds value with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema and complete parameter definitions, so return values and parameter syntax are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, confirmation requirements, and when the copy might fail, which are important for reliable agent usage. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as the purpose of the confirm flag or typical usage. Thus a baseline score 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 specifies the verb 'copy' and the resource 'file' with a destination scope ('within the workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_file (copy vs move) and write_file (copies existing file vs writes content).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as move_file or write_file, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name and brief description, but no explicit alternatives or when-to-use guidance is offered.

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