ftp_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recursively' and 'remote server', which are useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation or explain behaviors like result limits or path handling. The term 'search' implies safety, but it is not fully explicit.

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 that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and it contains no filler or redundant information. It is maximally concise while conveying the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not (e.g., whether results are paths, whether directories are included by default). The moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema) leaves gaps in understanding the complete behavior, although the purpose is clear.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description, including pattern, path, type, maxDepth, and maxResults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (files), and the specific scope (by name pattern with glob, recursively on the remote server). This distinguishes it from siblings like ftp_list and ftp_grep by emphasizing name-based recursive matching.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to find files by name pattern recursively), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for content search, use ftp_grep'). Guidance is implied rather than direct.

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