copy_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool copies directories recursively ('all contents') and is restricted to directories. However, it does not explain behavior on overwriting existing destinations, whether the destination is created automatically, or error handling for non-existent sources. For a copy operation, this is moderate transparency but lacks edge-case details.

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 English portion is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual repetition and keyword list add some redundancy but do not harm clarity significantly. The structure is efficient, with each sentence serving a distinct role: purpose, constraint, and alternative guidance.

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 (copy directory). The description covers the primary function, the critical type constraint, and the alternative. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Missing details like overwrite behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling differentiation. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and use.

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 schema descriptions for 'source' and 'destination' already provide full coverage (100%) of parameter meaning, including the directory-only constraint. The tool description adds little beyond the schema's wording, reinforcing 'all contents' but not introducing new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the action: 'Copy directory and all contents to new location.' It specifies the resource (directory) and scope (all contents), and explicitly distinguishes from the 'copy' tool by stating it only works on directories, not files. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like 'copy' and 'copy_file'.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Only works on directories, not files. Use 'copy' tool if unsure about path type.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative 'copy' tool, which is precisely what the dimension requires.

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