download-file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('download') but doesn't describe traits like authentication requirements, network timeouts, file size limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling). For a tool that interacts with an FTP server, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of FTP operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like return values (e.g., file content or success status), error conditions, or behavioral details. For a tool that retrieves data from a server, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'remotePath' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of path formats or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 action ('download') and resource ('a file from the FTP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'upload-file' or 'list-directory', but the verb 'download' inherently contrasts with those operations. The description avoids tautology by not just restating 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot download directories), or comparisons to siblings like 'list-directory' for checking file availability first. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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