remote_file_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does explain the underlying transfer mechanisms (SFTP for SSH2, base64 for child process), which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. This leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear main sentence, a bulleted list explaining the two session modes, and a practical example. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns every sentence's place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides solid context: what the tool does, how it works in different session types, and a concrete example. It does not cover error handling or overwrite behavior, but for a file upload tool with this simple interface, the description is reasonably complete.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters (localPath, remotePath, sessionId). The description does not add new meaning to these parameters beyond the schema; it merely implies their use in the example. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Upload' and specifies the resource 'a file from local machine to the remote server', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling `remote_file_download`. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 states it works with both SSH2 and child process sessions, giving clear context for when it applies. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that the intended usage is clear. The example 'Upload a config file to the server' reinforces the use case.

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