ftp_hashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the admin-password gating and data scoping, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'lista'), or any side effects.

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?

A single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that front-loads the core action ('Lista hashes') and then adds the conditional scope. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description captures the main behavioral rule but leaves agent_id semantics and error details unaddressed. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but not fully complete given the lack of annotations and zero schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of admin_password (enables full listing) and implicitly references agent scoping, but agent_id is left undefined and there is no explicit mapping from parameters to behavior.

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 action and resource: 'Lista hashes' (lists hashes). It also clarifies the scope by describing admin vs. non-admin behavior. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the conditional distinction helps differentiate it from related FTP tools.

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 gives clear invocation context: with the admin password it lists all hashes, without it only those created by the calling agent. This tells the agent when each mode applies, though it does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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