Verbindung aufbauen

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), external interaction (openWorldHint=true), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds detail about SFTP authentication options, aligning with annotations and providing useful extra 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loading the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description could hint at what the tool returns or side effects (e.g., establishing a session). However, it covers protocols and auth, and the sibling tools suggest a connection lifecycle. It is mostly complete but lacks explicit output info.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 the verb 'Verbindet' (connects) and the specific resource types (FTP-, FTPS- or SFTP-Server). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on file/directory operations or disconnection.

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 specifies supported protocols (ftp, ftps, sftp) and auth methods for sftp, giving clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites, the sibling tools imply a workflow, and the protocol enum bounds usage.

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