ssh_upload

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

There are no annotations to cover safety or side effects, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without explaining overwrite behavior, what happens on failure, whether the remote directory is created, or if any permissions are required. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, which is efficient in readability. However, it is under-specified; it lacks any structure such as parameter explanations or usage notes, making it minimal but not appropriately informative for a tool with five parameters.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits crucial operational context like authentication requirements, network dependencies, return values, and interactions with sibling tools. This is insufficient for safe and correct 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 adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not mention how host is specified, what timeout or overwrite do, or the format of local_path and remote_path. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 'Upload local file to remote host' clearly states the verb (upload) and resource (local file to remote host), which is specific enough to understand the core action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling ssh_upload_dir, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for files only.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions (e.g., directories should use ssh_upload_dir) or prerequisites such as SSH access or host configuration. The agent is left without context for selection.

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