ftp_checksum

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the intended action and omits important details such as whether this is a read-only operation, whether an existing connection is required, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a network operation.

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 immediately states the action and purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no unnecessary words, and every part earns its place.

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 a well-documented schema, the description lacks essential context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not specify the return format of the checksum, any dependencies (like connection state), or the default algorithm. This makes the description incomplete for understanding the full behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (path, algorithm, connection) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the schema to carry the burden. Baseline 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 explicitly states the action ('Calculate checksum') and the resource ('remote file'), with a clear purpose ('for integrity verification'). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, none of which perform checksum calculation.

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 phrase 'for integrity verification' provides a clear context for use, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the large set of sibling FTP tools, more explicit guidance would be helpful.

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