List configured servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that passwords/keys are never revealed and lists output fields, but omits details like speed, authentication requirements, or whether it caches results. For a list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides specifics. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema and low complexity (zero parameters), the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (list of server details) and a critical behavioral note (no secrets leaked). It could describe the output format (e.g., array of objects) but the listed fields compensate.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the output fields and adding a security guarantee, which based on the guidelines yields a baseline of 4 with no penalty.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all configured FTP/FTPS/SFTP servers'. It explicitly enumerates the fields returned (name, protocol, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform file operations.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated, the context of sibling tools (all action-oriented) implies this tool is for pre-operation configuration review. A note on when to use (e.g., before downloading) would improve clarity.

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