ssh_download_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description's single sentence carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core functionality and does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting local files), prerequisites (SSH credentials), security considerations (allow_sensitive parameter), or error/timeout behavior. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core function and is appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It omits parameter details, usage scenarios, and behavioral side effects, leaving the description inadequate for fully autonomous tool invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters beyond their names. While host, remote_dir, and local_dir are fairly self-explanatory, timeout and especially allow_sensitive are ambiguous and would benefit from clarification. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's action: '从远程主机下载目录到本地（递归下载所有文件）' (Download directory from remote host to local, recursively download all files). It specifies the verb (download), resource (directory), and scope (recursive), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_download (file download) and ssh_upload_dir (upload).

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 implies usage for downloading directories recursively but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_download for files or ssh_upload_dir for uploading. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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