upload_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: recursion, preserving directory structure, and requiring an existing local directory. However, it omits other relevant traits such as overwrite behavior, authentication needs, or handling of nested files/failures, so transparency is only partial.

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, front-loaded sentence that provides the core action and the only meaningful parameter clarification. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (recursive upload with two parameters) and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose but leaves gaps around remote_dir semantics and runtime behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description is not fully complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies one parameter: local_dir ('existing local directory path'). The remote_dir parameter is left entirely unexplained beyond its name, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. This leaves ambiguity about the destination path semantics.

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 ('upload the entire local directory recursively') and the target resource ('to Nutstore'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload_file by focusing on directories and recursive behavior. It also notes preserving directory structure, which is a specific, identifiable purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to upload a whole local directory recursively. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the wording and sibling context (e.g., upload_file for files) make the usage context unambiguous.

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