List a remote directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that 'Directories are listed first', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, error handling, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, the second adds a behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary information.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not specify the format of returned data (e.g., full paths, file sizes, dates) or behavior for invalid paths, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (path and server), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already states, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'List the contents of a remote directory'. It specifies that paths are relative to the server root and that directories are listed first, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftp_list_servers.

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 ftp_list versus its siblings. The description lacks explicit context about when to choose this tool over ftp_list_servers, ftp_download, or other file operations.

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