ftp_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic direction of transfer but does not disclose whether an existing connection is required, whether local files will be overwritten, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a network operation.

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, concise sentence that names the action and both endpoints. It earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It does not mention the need for an active FTP connection, behavior on existing local files, or any potential failure modes. The schema covers parameters, but the overall operational context is incomplete.

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 input schema covers both parameters (remotePath and localPath) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, but since the schema already provides complete definitions, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool downloads a file from an FTP server to the local filesystem, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the obvious sibling 'upload' but does not explicitly differentiate from 'read' or other related operations.

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 such as 'ftp_read' or 'ftp_upload', and no prerequisites like an active FTP connection are mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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