sftp_baixar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with useful, non-duplicated detail: it never overwrites and appends (1), (2) suffixes instead. The path-mirroring behavior is also disclosed. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g., the final local filename after suffixing).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the destination path and followed by the critical non-overwrite rule. Nothing is wasted and the truncation with "..." is the only blemish.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations covering return values, so the description should state what comes back — especially important here, since a non-overwriting download may land under a suffixed name the agent cannot predict. The local path and overwrite policy are covered well, but the missing return-value note leaves a real gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, and it partially does: <perfil> is shown as a path segment and "espelhando o caminho remoto" indicates caminho is the remote file path. It does not clarify whether caminho accepts directories or glob patterns, nor the expected perfil format.

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?

"Baixa um arquivo para <repositorio>/.claude/sftp/<perfil>/downloads/" states a specific verb (download) and resource (remote file), plus the exact local destination. This clearly separates it from sftp_enviar (upload) and sftp_ler (read in memory), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named. The destination path implicitly signals that this tool is for persisting a remote file to local disk rather than inspecting it, which is implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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