Fetch a remote file to a local path over SFTP, automatically creating missing local parent directories.
下载远端文件到本地（SFTP，本地父目录自动创建）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | Yes | ||
| local_path | Yes | ||
| remote_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations fix the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description usefully adds that it uses SFTP and that the local parent directory is created automatically — real behavior beyond annotations. However, it omits overwrite behavior on existing local files, auth/permission requirements, and error/partial-transfer handling.
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 the core action first and the protocol/auto-mkdir detail in a parenthetical. Appropriately sized with no filler, though necessarily thin given the missing guidance.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 3-parameter, fully-required file-transfer tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key details unspecified: overwrite semantics, connection expectations, and where files land. Inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for the three required parameters (connection, remote_path, local_path). The names are largely self-explanatory, but nothing clarifies the connection format or path conventions, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource ('下载远端文件到本地') and names the protocol (SFTP), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'upload'. It does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings like exec, but the direction of transfer is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer that this is for retrieving remote files over SFTP by contrast with 'upload', with no mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection must be established) or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.