sftp_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the basic listing action but does not mention return format, whether the listing is recursive, whether an active connection is required, or how errors from invalid paths are handled.

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?

One short sentence with no redundant phrasing. The core action and protocol are front-loaded and every word adds informational value.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate, but gaps remain: there is no output schema and no mention of what the listing returns, prerequisites, or behavior on inaccessible paths. It is minimum viable but not fully complete.

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 100%, and both remotePath and connectionId have concise descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter nuance, so the schema carries the weight; a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('files and directories in a remote path via SFTP'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like sftp_read or sftp_upload, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance is given about when to choose sftp_list instead of sftp_read, sftp_upload, or ssh_exec. The description only restates what the tool does; it does not explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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