get_ftp_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions error codes (internal_error, weak_password) but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or what happens if the config is missing. The error code 'weak_password' hints at a validation step, but it is not elaborated.

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 is very short (two lines) and to the point. It includes the essential purpose and error codes. However, it could be more structured with additional context without being verbose.

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 is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description minimally covers the purpose. However, it lacks context about what FtpConfig represents, when errors occur, and the nature of the operation. The error codes hint at possible issues but are not explained.

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 has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 states 'Get the FtpConfig', which clearly indicates the action (get) and the resource (FtpConfig). However, it does not differentiate from other get_* tools like get_connection_config, and it is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or why one would choose this over other get tools.

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