ftp_find

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 indicates a read-only search over a scoped file set, but it does not mention auth requirements, limits, failure behavior, or confirm that the operation makes no modifications. For a tool with no annotation safety signals, this is a notable gap.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the verb and object are front-loaded. It is easy to parse, though the list of search modes is somewhat packed and could be structured more explicitly without much extra length.

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-value documentation is not necessary here. The core search semantics are present, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves optional parameters, sibling differentiation, and behavioral expectations underexplained. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 does add meaning for the core parameters: query can be a path, content hash, or metadata, and access_hash scopes the search. However, limit and agent_id are left entirely unexplained, leaving partial coverage only.

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 states a specific action ('Busca arquivos') and resource ('deste access_hash'), and clarifies the search modes: path, content hash, or metadata. This makes it reasonably distinct from siblings like ftp_ls or ftp_get, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to search files belonging to an access_hash by query criteria. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer ftp_find over ftp_ls, ftp_meta, or other siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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