ssh_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses truncation at a configured size limit, a non-obvious trait, but omits permission/auth failure behavior, encoding assumptions, and how partial content is signaled.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the fallback guidance follows immediately. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete, covering the action and the truncation caveat. With no output schema, a brief note on the return format (e.g., whether truncation is flagged in the response) would close the remaining gap.

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% for both parameters (host alias, file path), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Read) and resource (contents of a text file on a remote SSH host), including scope (remote host, text file). It implicitly differentiates from ssh_write_file and ssh_exec by naming the exec alternative that handles large-file slicing.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to ssh_exec with head/tail/grep for very large files, which is clear conditional guidance with a named alternative. It does not, however, address other edge cases (binary files, error paths) that would justify a 5.

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