ftp_stat

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates that the call is non-destructive and returns metadata without content, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior around missing paths, unregistered hashes, permission requirements, or directory versus file handling.

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 concise sentence that leads with the resource and result, and adds a content-exclusion qualifier. There is no filler; the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is a simple stat operation and an output schema is present, so return values need not be spelled out. Still, the description lacks any indication of how this tool relates to ftp_meta/ftp_ls and omits parameter details needed for correct invocation in ambiguous cases.

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 for parameter meaning. It implicitly maps 'path' and 'hash cadastrado' to the path and access_hash parameters, but it does not explain path format, agent_id usage, or how access_hash should be supplied.

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 that the tool returns metadata for a path under a registered hash, explicitly excluding content. This gives a specific verb/resource and helps distinguish it from content-returning tools like ftp_get, but it does not differentiate it from the similarly named sibling ftp_meta.

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 given about when to choose ftp_stat over alternatives such as ftp_meta, ftp_ls, or ftp_find. The description only defines the operation; it never states when it is appropriate or when another tool should be preferred.

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