ftp_ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the output consists of files with content hashes and metadata, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it works recursively, or how path/query parameters affect behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant output detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple listing command, and an output schema exists so return values need not be fully restated. However, the missing explanations for path and query behavior, plus the lack of alternatives, leave meaningful gaps for an agent choosing and invoking the tool correctly.

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 by explaining parameters. It only references access_hash ('deste access_hash') and ignores path, query, and agent_id entirely. The schema provides defaults and names, but not semantics for how these parameters shape the listing.

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 a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('o diretório deste access_hash'), making it clear that this tool lists a directory associated with an access hash. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftp_get, ftp_put, and ftp_find because 'ls' is explicitly a directory-listing operation.

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 implies the tool is for listing directory contents, so an agent can infer a basic use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer ftp_ls over alternatives like ftp_find or ftp_stat, and no exclusions or context-dependent selection criteria.

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