ssh_read_file

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

No annotations provided. The description covers basic read behavior but does not disclose error handling (e.g., missing file) or return format details. With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it provides minimum viable transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a clear list of arguments. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 is simple, and the description covers purpose and parameters well. The absence of usage guidelines is a minor gap given the many sibling file-reading tools. Output schema exists but does not need description. Overall, it's complete for a basic read operation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains all three parameters: path (absolute path), session_name (SSH session to use), and max_lines (max lines to read, 0=all). This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 tool reads file contents on a remote machine. The verb 'read' and resource 'file contents' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like ssh_head_file, ssh_tail_file, and ssh_file_info.

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings. There is no mention of whether to use this for full-file reads versus head/tail, or considerations like file size or performance.

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