remote_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the recursive flag for directories, but does not address potential overwrites, permission requirements, error handling, or effects of a successful copy. This is insufficient for a tool that creates files on the server.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to describing the tool's core function or a key parameter usage. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations. The description only touches on recursive behavior and vaguely implies path roles. It omits essential context about profile, connection, path formats, and operational side effects, making the description far from complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It adds meaning for 'recursive' via the explicit instruction, and indirectly for remote_path/local_path by mentioning 'Copy a remote file or directory to the MCP server.' However, it leaves 'profile' and 'connection' unexplained, leaving substantial semantic gaps for half the parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('remote file or directory to the MCP server'), making the tool's primary function unambiguous. The direction (remote to server) distinguishes it from sibling remote_upload, even without an explicit contrast.

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 instruction 'Set recursive=true for directories' provides a clear usage condition for a specific scenario, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remote_upload. The usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.

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