copy_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the key file-only restriction, but does not mention overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the source does not exist. This is a meaningful gap, though the description does add useful context beyond a bare 'copy file' statement.

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 front-loaded with the core action and constraints, but includes redundant keywords and a full bilingual repetition of the same information. It remains concise and structured, but the extra content is not strictly necessary, preventing a perfect score.

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 a simple 2-parameter copy tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, limitation, and alternative. It omits some behavioral details like overwrite semantics, but given the schema richness and simplicity of the tool, it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described with clarity and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only repeats the file-only constraint already in the schema. 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?

The description clearly states 'Copy specific file to new location', identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting to files and referencing 'copy' for uncertain path types, which differentiates it from copy_directory and copy.

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?

It explicitly states 'Only works on files, not directories' and advises using 'copy' if unsure about path type. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with an explicit alternative tool named.

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