kali_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but omits behavioral details like idempotency, overwrite behavior, permissions required, or success/failure indications. The existence of an output schema is noted but its content is unknown.

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 concise with a clear docstring format and bulleted parameter explanations. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with a brief behavioral note.

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 file upload tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers basic functionality but misses details on error handling, overwrite behavior, path format, and return value structure (despite output schema existence). Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that content is Base64-encoded, remote_path is a destination, encoding options include utf-8 and binary, and verify_checksum is for integrity. This goes beyond the schema's type/name information.

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') and the target resource ('Kali server filesystem'), making it distinct from siblings like 'target_upload_file' or 'reverse_shell_upload_content' which target different locations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'kali_download', 'target_upload_file', or reverse shell upload tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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