pull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the transport (FTP via zftpd, port 2120), the auto-start behavior and its failure mode (refused while another agent has claimed the console), the degraded fallback (single files only without zftpd), and the skip/resume/force semantics for repeated copies.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each carrying distinct operational information, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional behaviors following. No filler.

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 3-param transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete on behavior and preconditions. It omits only what happens on failure/partial completion in terms of returned status and the meaning of remote_path.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three params: local_path semantics (existing folder or trailing '/') and force (recopy everything) are spelled out. remote_path syntax is left unaddressed, keeping this short of a 5.

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 and resource with explicit direction: 'Copy a file or folder from the console to this Mac.' The directional phrasing implicitly separates it from the sibling 'push', which moves data the other way, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the console-to-Mac transfer tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer 'push' or how it relates to 'claim_console').

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