liara_list_ftp_accesses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists FTP accesses but doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, how pagination works with the multiple parameters, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it 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?

Given the complexity of 6 parameters (including pagination alternatives) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to handle pagination choices (page/perPage vs limit/offset), what the returned data structure includes, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond implying that 'appName' and 'diskName' are required to scope the listing, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('FTP accesses for a disk'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_list_disks' or 'liara_list_objects' beyond the specific resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing disk with FTP access configured, or comparisons to other listing tools in the sibling set.

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