ftp_search

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

Without annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only mentions search capabilities but omits details like recursion, performance impact, or required permissions, leaving significant gaps.

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 key purpose, no superfluous words. Efficiently conveys the tool's role.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It mentions search types but not return format, behavior on no matches, or recursion (though schema indicates recursion via path description).

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to search types (name, extension, content regex) and explaining findLikelyConfigs. Some parameters like path, limit, offset have only schema descriptions.

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 it is an advanced remote file search tool that supports finding files by name, extension, or content regex. It distinguishes from basic list operations but does not differentiate from similar sibling like ftp_analyze_workspace.

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 says 'Use this to find specific code patterns across the remote workspace,' providing implicit guidance. However, it lacks when-not-to-use instructions or explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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