ftp_get

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 does reveal an important behavior — SHA-256 recalculation — and hints at an auth requirement, but it does not describe side effects, failure behavior, or what happens when expected_hash is supplied. This is useful but not rich context.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the main action, and every sentence contributes either purpose, a prerequisite, or behavioral context. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic action, a key prerequisite, and a notable behavior, and an output schema exists. However, it leaves parameter semantics largely unexplained and does not clarify its relationship to ftp_verify or the doc_get family, so an agent may not reliably select it in ambiguous cases.

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 for the five parameters. It adds meaning only for access_hash and indirectly for expected_hash via 'Recalcula SHA-256'; path, agent_id, and include_content are left entirely to inference. This is a meaningful gap.

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 clear verb and resource ('Baixa arquivo' = downloads a file), so the core purpose is obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling retrieval tools like doc_get or ftp_verify, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: the access_hash must be the same one registered/used in the put operation. However, it does not specify when to choose ftp_get over alternatives such as ftp_verify or doc_get, nor does it mention any conditions that should prevent use.

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