ftp_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Read the content' which suggests it returns the file content as a string, but it does not mention whether an active FTP connection is required, what happens for large files (could be memory-heavy), whether it returns an error for missing files, or if the entire file is read at once. The only behavioral detail is the 'text files only' limitation.

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 fully conveys the core action and constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb, has no redundant words, and every part earns its place. This is an excellent example of concise, efficient documentation.

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?

There is no output schema, and the tool is part of an FTP suite. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but does not mention the need for an established connection, the return format, or any size limitations. Given the simplicity, it is not a serious gap, but it would benefit from a brief note about using ftp_download for binary or large files.

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 has 100% description coverage: 'remotePath' is described as 'Remote file path to read' and 'encoding' as 'File encoding (default: utf-8)'. The tool description does not add any extra semantics beyond these. Since the schema fully documents both parameters, the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'remote file', and the parenthetical '(text files only)' clearly distinguishes this from ftp_download (which likely saves to a local file) and ftp_list (which lists directory contents). It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

The description provides a clear constraint ('text files only') which implies it should not be used for binary files, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like ftp_download. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, only an implied restriction.

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