ssh_read_file

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

The description gives no behavioral details beyond the protocol (SFTP). It fails to mention error handling (e.g., file not found), output format (file content as string or binary), or security warnings (password exposure), which are critical given no annotations.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. No redundant phrases; every word is necessary. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey what the tool returns (e.g., file contents as a string) and any limitations. It does not. The omission is significant for a tool with 6 parameters including sensitive ones.

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 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No param-specific details are provided.

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 (read) and resource (file from remote host via SFTP), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like ssh_download or ssh_tail, which could cause selection confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ssh_tail for partial reads, ssh_download for file transfers). There is no mention of prerequisites such as SSH key setup or required permissions.

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