ftp_download_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It only discloses the recursive nature, but omits significant behaviors such as the default overwrite= true, whether local directories are created, or what happens on failure. The parameter 'overwrite' implies overwriting, but the description does not acknowledge it.

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 sentence with a clear verb and object, front-loading the action and scope. No waste or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, edge cases (e.g., non-existent remote path), or local path creation behavior. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully inform an agent of expected outcomes.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by indicating that remotePath is a directory and that the operation is recursive, but it does not provide per-parameter details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Download an entire remote directory to a local path recursively'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ftp_download (single file) and ftp_upload_directory (reverse operation).

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 implies the use case (recursive full-directory download) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like ftp_download or ftp_sync. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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