ftp_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the listing includes permissions, size, date, and type, which is useful. However, it doesn't address edge cases like error handling, sorting, or behavior with missing paths, so transparency is average.

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 that conveys the core action and key output details without unnecessary words. Every phrase 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?

For a simple listing tool with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable. It doesn't explain the return format or when to use it, but the schema and sibling context make the tool usable. It could benefit from a note about default path behavior or hidden files, but the current description is not inadequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any semantics beyond the schema; it only hints at output details. Since all parameters are already described in the schema, no additional compensation is needed.

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 resource ('directory contents') with explicit detail fields (permissions, size, date, type). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ftp_tree or ftp_stat by focusing on directory listing with structured details.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context that would help an agent choose between ftp_list and similar tools like ftp_tree, ftp_stat, or ftp_exists.

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