ftp_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the listing is recursive and has a depth limit, but does not mention other relevant behaviors like hidden files, sorting, or error handling. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 directly states the purpose and a key parameter (depth limit). It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity, the fully descriptive schema, and the straightforward read-only nature implied by 'list', the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the obvious return of a tree structure.

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 input schema description covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as parameter syntax or format details, so it neither improves nor degrades the baseline.

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 'Recursively list directory tree structure with depth limit' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ftp_list (a flat listing) and ftp_find (a search). It also conveys key scope constraints (recursiveness and depth).

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 such as ftp_list or ftp_find. It implies usage for recursive tree listing, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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