ftp_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that only metadata is extracted, that access_hash is required, and that resolution happens by path or content hash. It does not explain behavior when both path and hash are supplied, what happens on missing metadata, or any side effects, but the core read-only metadata boundary is present.

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 most important constraint ('only extracted metadata') is front-loaded, followed by the required credential and the two lookup modes. 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions. It leaves agent_id undefined, does not clarify how path, hash, and agent_id relate, and does not differentiate itself from ftp_stat among the siblings. An agent would likely need additional probing to invoke this correctly 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. It mentions path, content hash, and access_hash conceptually, but it never names the parameters explicitly, does not explain agent_id at all, and gives no format or precedence rules for path versus hash. This is a notable gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 Portuguese description states 'Só metadados extraídos' (only extracted metadata), which clearly indicates the tool returns metadata rather than file content. It also identifies the key lookup modes: by path or by content hash. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ftp_get or ftp_stat, but the 'only metadata' scope gives a clear resource and 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 provides useful context: access_hash is required and lookups happen by path or content hash. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of ftp_get, ftp_stat, or ftp_hashes, and it does not give any exclusion or alternative guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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