get_ftp_base_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and supplies almost nothing. The verb "Get" weakly implies a safe read, but there is no statement about what is returned, whether configuration is exposed, or any permission requirement.

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 short phrase with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a zero-argument tool. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, and it leaves the return contents entirely unknown. An agent cannot tell what fields or FTP settings this exposes, which matters for a config-inspection tool in a family of similar "base info" getters.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter information is needed or missing.

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?

"Get FTP base info" restates the tool name with a verb+resource pattern but never defines what "base info" actually contains. It does not distinguish itself from sibling readers like get_fail2ban_base_info or get_clam_base_info, which use the identical phrasing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools such as list_ftp_users or get_ftp_logs. An agent must guess the circumstances under which FTP base info is relevant.

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