List Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal extra context by specifying the FTP scope. It does not mention error behavior, response format, or any edge cases, but given the safety profile is covered, this is acceptable.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential action and object. No wasted words or redundant phrasing; it earns its place effectively.

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 listing tool with one parameter, a clear purpose, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't specify recursion or sorting, but these are likely not essential given the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 single parameter remotePath is fully described in the schema ('Path of the directory on the FTP server'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when structured data is already informative.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contents of an FTP directory'), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like download-file or delete-file. The wording is unambiguous and actionable.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or preferred use cases. The description simply states the action without explaining context, such as 'use to browse directory structure' or 'for file retrieval use download-file'.

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