jms_sftp_usage_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that the tool returns workflow guidance and safety rules, which is exactly what it does. There is no indication of side effects or hidden behavior, and the 'Return' verb makes the read-only nature clear.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys both key aspects of the guide (workflow and safety rules) in a compact format.

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 simple usage-guide tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It informs the agent about the two critical content areas—recommended workflow and safety rules—which is all that is needed to decide when to invoke the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any parameter-related details that would be irrelevant.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource: the recommended SFTP workflow and destructive-operation safety rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jms_terminal_usage_guide by explicitly mentioning SFTP, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool by mentioning 'destructive-operation safety rules,' suggesting it should be consulted before performing destructive SFTP operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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