sftp_perfis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the listing is "sem segredo", i.e. credentials/secrets are deliberately omitted from the response. It says nothing about ordering, whether the list can be empty, or per-profile visibility restrictions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, and returned attributes. Slight redundancy with the output schema in the field enumeration, but that enumeration is what makes the sentence informative, so the cost is small.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with an output schema present, the description carries its expected weight: it names the resource, the fields, and the secret-omission policy. Only the relationship to sibling tools (sftp_listar, sftp_info) is unresolved.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the schema is left ambiguous for the caller.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista os perfis cadastrados") and even enumerates the salient fields returned (host, ambiente, repositorio vinculado, raizes), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, contrast itself with the similarly-named sibling sftp_listar or with sftp_info, which is where the ambiguity lies.

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?

Usage is only implied: to discover which profiles exist, call this tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite ordering (e.g. call this before sftp_ler/sftp_enviar to obtain a valid profile), and no exclusion against sftp_listar, whose name suggests a competing listing operation.

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