ftp_batch_download

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'stable socket persistence' as a behavioral trait. However, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as idempotency, error handling, concurrency limits, or whether existing local files are overwritten.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose, with zero extraneous content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage recommendation adequately. However, it could be enriched with notes on concurrency, file conflict behavior, or error reporting to be fully complete.

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 covers 100% of parameter properties with descriptions, providing clear structure. The tool description itself adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the action (download), resource (remote files to local destinations), and recommends it for bulk downloads. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like ftp_download (single file) and ftp_batch_upload (upload direction), providing a specific verb+resource scope.

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 explicitly recommends this tool for bulk downloads to leverage stable socket persistence, implying when to use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools for single file downloads.

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