Listar arquivos do SD da impressora

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the FTPS protocol detail and useful directory paths, but it does not describe the return format, whether the listing is recursive, or authentication/connection expectations. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, but other behavioral details are missing.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the directory guidance is compact, relevant, and immediately useful. Every sentence 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return shape and connection behavior. It gives the protocol and useful directories, but omits what the response looks like and any error or authentication details. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value for the 'dir' parameter by enumerating useful directories and explaining where uploaded .gcode.3mf files live, which the schema does not provide. The other parameters are adequately documented in 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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('arquivos do cartão SD da impressora Bambu Lab via FTPS'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like bambu_upload_file and bambu_status by focusing on listing existing SD card contents.

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 useful directory context ('/', '/timelapse', '/cache'), which implies when the tool is useful, such as inspecting stored .gcode.3mf files before printing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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