ftp_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavioral signal—'Disco alterado → tampered'—which tells the agent that modified content yields a tampered result. However, it does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, or error/response behavior beyond this ternary signal.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the access requirement and the tampered condition. Every fragment earns some place, though the telegraphic style sacrifices some precision.

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 tool has four parameters, only one required, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description leaves the roles of hash, path, and agent_id entirely to inference, and while an output schema exists, the description still lacks enough context for reliable invocation in all expected 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 should compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It only mentions access_hash, which duplicates the schema's required field, leaving hash, path, and agent_id semantically unexplained. The phrase 'SHA-256 no disco' loosely implies hash and disk path, but this is weak support.

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: recalculating the SHA-256 on disk, which conveys the core verification purpose. It is clearer than the tool name alone and hints at its role among the ftp_* siblings, though the phrasing is terse and lacks an explicit 'compare and report' statement.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use ftp_verify versus alternatives like ftp_hashes or ftp_stat. The only contextual hint is 'Exige access_hash', but that is a parameter requirement rather than a usage decision rule.

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