ssh_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Extract an archive file' without detailing potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files, required permissions, handling of invalid archives, or remote execution context via SSH). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise with three clear sentences: a one-line action statement, a line listing supported formats, and a brief parameter listing with defaults. No unnecessary verbiage; every part serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (the description need not explain return values), the description adequately covers core functionality. However, it lacks important context such as that the extraction occurs remotely via SSH, error handling behavior, and whether the archive is removed after extraction. These gaps reduce completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters with minimal explanations (e.g., 'Path to the archive file') and mentions default values. The list of supported archive formats adds useful context but does not detail parameter constraints (e.g., valid paths, format-specific behaviors). This provides some added value over the schema, hence a 3.

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 clearly states the action 'Extract an archive file' and lists supported formats, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tool 'ssh_compress' (compress vs. extract). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_compress for compression, ssh_copy for copying files). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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