health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what information the tool reports (data_dir, files, registered hashes, agent identity), which gives some idea of its diagnostic nature. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, mention permissions, or describe 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?

The description is a single compact phrase with no filler words, and the core subject 'Saúde do FTP' is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than truly concise explanation.

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 health-check tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description provides a reasonable high-level summary of what is inspected. The main gap is the undocumented agent_id parameter, which could confuse an agent about whether or how to supply it. Overall, it is minimally adequate 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 0% and the description does not explain the agent_id parameter. The phrase 'identidade deste agente' hints at an identity-related concept, which weakly connects to the Agent Id parameter, but it never clarifies whether agent_id selects a different agent, scopes the health report, or is even relevant to the output.

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 identifies the resource (FTP) and the nature of the tool (health/status), and lists the included contents: data_dir, files, registered hashes, and agent identity. It is distinguishable from sibling operation tools like ftp_put, ftp_get, and ftp_rm because it signals a diagnostic overview rather than a file operation, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or preconditions stated. The name 'health' implies a status check, but the description does not explain scenarios where this is the appropriate choice or when another sibling like ftp_hashes or ftp_stat might be better.

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