copy_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention overwrite behavior, recursive copying by default, or any side effects. The description simply restates the function without revealing how the operation behaves.

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 highly concise, using a single short phrase with no unnecessary words. However, it is so sparse that it under-specifies, trading completeness for brevity. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks needed detail.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not explain whether the destination gets overwritten, how directory recursion works, or what errors might occur, leaving significant gaps for a simple file operation 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all three parameters (source, destination, recursive) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 (copy) and the target (file or directory), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_file or delete_file. Even though it is brief, it unambiguously identifies the tool's core function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer copy_file over move_file, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is entirely implied by the name and sibling tool list.

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