sftp_download

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful constraint: paths must sit inside downloadRoots/localRoots when the host defines them. However, it is silent on the overwrite default of true (which can clobber local files), on directory recursion behavior, and on auth/permission needs, leaving real behavioral gaps for a tool that writes to the local filesystem.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: action first, then use case, then the constraint. Every sentence carries weight, though the run-on feel of the final sentence slightly blurs the structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Against 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, and path constraints but omits the overwrite clobber risk and directory-handling behavior an agent would want before invoking.

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 adds genuine meaning for remotePath and localPath (plain paths, path-root containment) that the schema lacks entirely, but says nothing about host or the consequential overwrite flag, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Download), resource (remote file or directory), destination (local machine), and transport (SFTP). The direction is unmistakable and cleanly separates it from the sftp_upload sibling, which pulls/pushes in the opposite direction.

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?

'Use to pull logs, config or artifacts for offline analysis' gives a concrete usage scenario and intent. It stops short of explicitly naming when NOT to use it or pointing at alternatives like sftp_list, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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