sassy_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: refusal to operate on protected paths and refusal to silently overwrite existing destinations. These are significant behaviors that an agent must know. It does not mention permissions, error formats, or other side effects, but for a copy tool the disclosed behaviors are the most critical.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds functional value. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second explains limitations and resolution. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the primary purpose and key constraints. It could mention that replication is recursive for directories (though 'directory tree' implies it) or how errors are surfaced, but for a copy operation this is sufficient. A small gap is not mentioning whether the destination must be a directory or a file path.

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 provides only 'source' and 'destination' as strings with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that the source/destination can be a file or directory tree and that protected paths are refused, which gives some meaning. However, it does not elaborate on path formats, whether the destination must exist, or handling of trailing slashes. The contribution is minimal but existent, so a 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 'Copy a file or directory tree.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like sassy_move and sassy_safe_delete. It communicates both the action and the scope (file or directory tree) effectively.

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 clear guidance by stating that protected src/dst are refused and that overwriting an existing destination is not allowed, with an explicit alternative: 'use sassy_safe_delete on the destination first if you really need to replace it.' This gives an alternative and context, though it does not explicitly contrast with other copy-related tools (e.g., sassy_move).

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