ftp_cp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only says 'copies file within the same access_hash' and does not explain whether the destination is overwritten, whether directories are created, whether it is atomic, whether it copies permissions/timestamps, or what access_hash means operationally. The description is not misleading, but it leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core action ('Copia arquivo') and scope. It contains no filler or redundant words. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies important details, which slightly lowers the score from a perfect 5.

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?

With no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the agent lacks context about the access_hash, path formats, overwrite behavior, and relationship to sibling operations. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the operational context needed to call this tool correctly is largely absent. More detail about when and how to use it is required.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention src, dst, access_hash, or agent_id at all. While src and dst are somewhat self-explanatory, access_hash and agent_id are opaque. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names in the schema, so the agent has to guess meanings from context.

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 a specific action ('Copies file') and a resource (file) with a scope constraint ('within the same access_hash'). It is clearly a copy operation, distinguishable at a high level from ftp_mv (move) and ftp_put/get (external transfer). However, it does not explicitly call out sibling tools or explain the access_hash concept, so it does not fully distinguish itself.

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 'dentro do mesmo access_hash' implicitly tells the agent this tool is for copies where source and destination share the same access_hash, implying it is not for cross-hash copies. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose ftp_cp over siblings like ftp_mv or ftp_put, nor any 'when not to use' statement. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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