Pull the same remote path from every host in a fleet

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses concurrent fan-out, SFTP reads, edit-level access requirements, per-successful-host zip entries, and a v1 single-file restriction. It does not discuss failure handling or rate limits, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the mechanics/access/output are in the second sentence, and the known limitation is stated last.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (zip archive with host-prefixed entries), concurrency, access scope, and file-type limitation. It could mention what happens on partial/no successful hosts, but the per-successful-host clause already conveys partial success semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for remotePath (SFTP path, single file only), but never explicitly defines id as the fleet identifier or explains the requiredness/format of either parameter. The fleet reference is inferable from the termix_fleets namespace and title, but not stated.

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 ('pull'), names the resource (same remote path), and defines the target scope ('every host in a fleet'). It also details the output format, distinguishing it from sibling fleet operations such as push/run-command tools.

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?

It clearly implies the use case: retrieving a single file from all fleet hosts, and states the access precondition ('edit-level access') and the single-file limitation. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the pull-over-push and file-over-command intent is apparent from the wording.

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