remote_glob

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: discloses newest-first sort, a hard cap of 100 files, a 'truncated' flag, and that .gitignore is NOT respected (unlike remote_grep). It leaves auth/permission requirements and error behavior unstated, which is the remaining gap for a zero-annotation 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?

Front-loads the core action and the key routing decision, then uses compact labelled sections for args and returns. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; nothing is 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?

Given a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers action, routing, parameter formats, defaults, result shape, and a notable behavioral caveat (.gitignore). An output schema exists, yet the extra return summary is a harmless bonus rather than a necessity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: host (SSH alias/registered name), pattern with concrete glob examples, and path with its default and the relative-path semantics of returned filenames.

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+resource ('Find files by a glob pattern on a remote host') plus a distinguishing trait (newest first). It explicitly separates itself from remote_exec (raw find/ls) and remote_grep (content matching), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 says to prefer this over running find/ls via remote_exec, and names remote_grep as the alternative for content matching. Both the when and the when-not are stated with the selecting condition.

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