ftp_probe_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the scan is read-only or requires specific permissions. It does not mention side effects or safety considerations, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral context.

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?

Description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence contributes, though it could be more structured (e.g., using bullet points).

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate but missing details about return values or how results are presented, which would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter testPath, and the schema description already explains its purpose. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans a remote server to determine supported filesystem features like chmod, symlink support, and disk space querying. The verb 'scan' and resource 'capabilities' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that perform specific operations (e.g., ftp_chmod, ftp_disk_space).

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?

Description implies usage for troubleshooting capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking disk space via ftp_disk_space). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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