ssh_stat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the exact metadata returned (e.g., permissions in octal, type flags) and mentions SFTP protocol. It does not disclose potential behaviors like symlink following or error handling, but for a straightforward stat operation 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?

The description consists of two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and key details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values, listing all relevant fields. It is complete for a metadata retrieval tool with no complex behavior.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions no additional parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 ('get metadata'), the resource ('file or directory on a remote host via SFTP'), and lists the specific return fields (size, permissions, uid/gid, mtime/atime, type flags). It distinguishes from parsing `ls -la` output, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool instead of parsing `ls -la` output, providing a clear usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like ssh_ls, which could be a common alternative.

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