ssh_list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what each entry includes (type, size, permission bits, modification time), which is useful, but it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., if the path doesn't exist), permission requirements, or whether it follows symlinks. For a read-only operation, the safety profile is implied but not stated.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and scope. Every clause earns its place by adding either the default path or the entry fields, with no 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?

Given the simple two-parameter read operation, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers default and return fields but lacks any mention of error handling or limitations, which would be helpful for an agent in production use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (host as SSH config alias, path as directory path with default). The description repeats the default for path but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the contents of a directory on a remote SSH host') and clarifies the default scope (remote user's home directory). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ssh_stat (single file metadata) and ssh_read_file (file contents) without needing to open schemas.

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 usage context (listing remote directory contents) and defaults, which helps an agent decide to use this over ssh_stat or ssh_read_file. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for edge cases (e.g., listing a single file's metadata).

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