Transférer plusieurs fichiers/dossiers (SFTP)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions glob pattern support which is useful, but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether transfers are synchronous/asynchronous, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when transfers fail. For a file transfer tool with mutation capabilities, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient French sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 file transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to monitor transfer progress, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The combination of mutation capability (file transfers), multiple parameters, and lack of structured metadata means the description should provide more operational context.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions glob pattern support which relates to the 'local' parameter's pattern capability, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context about how parameters work together. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the decent schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Lance des transferts SFTP multiples avec support de patterns glob' (Launches multiple SFTP transfers with glob pattern support). It specifies the action (launch transfers), resource (SFTP files/folders), and key capability (glob patterns). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'task_transfer' which appears to be a similar single-transfer tool.

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 the sibling 'task_transfer' tool or explain when to choose multiple transfers over single transfers. There's no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for batch SFTP operations.

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