ftp_compare

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what kind of differences are reported, how output is structured, or whether it follows recursion (though recursion is implied by the schema default). This lack of detail is a notable gap for a tool that likely traverses directories.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It succinctly conveys the tool's core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect from the tool. It does not explain the return format, whether results are a list of differences, a diff summary, or a status code. For a comparison tool, this is a significant omission that leaves the agent unsure of how to interpret results or handle them downstream.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions 'local and remote directories' but does not elaborate on 'recursive' or 'connection' semantics. Since the schema already describes each parameter, the description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not enrich them.

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 'Compare local and remote directories to find differences' clearly states the action (compare) and the resources (local and remote directories), with the intended outcome (find differences). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with ftp_sync or ftp_mirror, which also involve comparison but add modification.

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 instead of alternatives like ftp_sync, ftp_mirror, or ftp_list. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a compare is appropriate.

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