Copy a file from your computer to an Android phone, defaulting to the Download folder; specify a destination path to control where it lands.
Copy a file from this computer to the phone (default: the phone's Download folder).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local_path | Yes | File on this computer. | |
| remote_path | No | Destination on the phone; a path ending in '/' keeps the file name. | /sdcard/Download/ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It gives the default destination folder but says nothing about overwrite behavior when the file already exists, whether missing directories are created, permission/root requirements, or what errors look like — critical gaps for a file-writing operation.
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?
One short sentence with the direction front-loaded and the destination default in parentheses. Efficient, though the parenthetical duplicates the schema default rather than earning its place.
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?
A two-parameter, one-required tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the direction and destination adequately, but with no annotations the missing failure/overwrite semantics leave the agent without enough to predict outcomes.
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% and both parameters are already documented, including the trailing-slash rule and the /sdcard/Download/ default, which the description merely restates. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (copy) plus both endpoints (this computer to the phone), which implicitly distinguishes it from the reverse-direction sibling device_pull. It never names device_pull explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 phrase 'from this computer to the phone' implies when to use it over device_pull, but there are no explicit exclusions, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.