ftp_stat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates this is a read operation and specifies the returned attributes (size, modified date, permissions, type). However, it does not disclose behavior for missing paths, whether it follows symlinks, or any potential side effects, though for a stat-like operation these are minimal expectations.

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 conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundant information.

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 metadata retrieval tool, the description is sufficient. It lists the key output fields and explicitly covers both files and directories. While there is no output schema, the described attributes give the agent a clear idea of what to expect. A slightly more detailed note on return format would be ideal, but the current description is substantively complete.

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%—both parameters ('path' and 'connection') have descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 tool gets file or directory info, specifying the attributes (size, modified date, permissions, type). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftp_list (which lists entries) or ftp_exists (which checks existence), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving metadata, but it does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools like ftp_dir_size or ftp_list. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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