上传文件

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the overwrite warning, which reinforces but does not add much beyond annotations. It does not mention authentication requirements, progress reporting, or failure behavior. The description adds some context about overwrite, but with annotations covering the destructive nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core action and a key risk. It is appropriately sized, but the lack of parameter information makes it slightly under-informative, though efficiency-wise it is fine.

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 complexity (5 parameters, destructive action, no schema descriptions), the description is too sparse. It covers the upload action and overwrite warning but omits parameter semantics, usage examples, and behavioral details like how overwrite is controlled by 'preserve'. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the description still lacks critical context for 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 does not explain any parameters. The description mentions overwrite but not what 'preserve', 'recursive', 'alias', or path parameters do. With zero coverage in the schema, the description must compensate but fails to do so, resulting in a score of 2.

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 states '通过 SFTP 上传文件' (upload files via SFTP) with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool uploads files. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling ssh_download or ssh_start_job, but the upload action is inherently distinct from other SSH tools, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it does mention the overwrite risk ('目标已存在时可能被覆盖'), which provides context for cautious usage. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so it only partially addresses usage guidelines.

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