copy_file

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

The description clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: copying is byte-for-byte and does not perform UTF-8 decoding, which is essential for binary safety. It does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or return value, but the core side effect—creating a copy at the destination—is evident.

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 first sentence gets straight to the point, and the subsequent rationale is relevant. The final explanatory clause about a 'real gap found in practice' is slightly verbose and could be trimmed, but overall the description is not overly long and uses a logical structure.

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 straightforward copy operation, the description provides sufficient context: why binary copying is needed, when to use it, and the desired end state of a self-contained submission. It omits details about return values and failure modes, but these are not critical for a simple two-parameter copy tool.

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 parameter names source_path and dest_path are self-explanatory, and the description's use of research_folder and project_dir provides some contextual mapping. However, the schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not formally define each parameter's expected format or constraints, leaving some reliance on naming conventions.

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 opens with a specific verb and object—'Copy a file byte-for-byte'—and immediately contrasts it with read_file/write_file, making the tool's unique purpose clear. It also gives a concrete use case (bringing a figure into the project directory), which removes ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for binary files like figures and PDFs that read_file/write_file cannot safely round-trip. It also explains the intended workflow—copying from research_folder into project_dir to enable relative paths—so the agent knows the exact situation where this tool is appropriate.

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