List Remote Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the concrete command 'ls -la', giving insight into exactly what executes on the remote host. It does not go into deeper behavior like output formatting or edge cases, but it adds useful context beyond the 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys all essential information without any filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple directory-listing tool, the description is largely complete. It lacks an explicit mention of return format or output behavior, but the ls -la command implies standard output. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail might help, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is adequate.

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% parameter coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'List a directory on the configured SSH host using ls -la.' It names the resource (directory), the method (ls -la), and the host relationship, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_ssh_exec or remote_ssh_read_text.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly laid out. The description indicates when you would use it (to list a directory), but it does not mention alternatives or when to avoid it, such as when you need to read a file or execute arbitrary commands. Sibling tool names hint at alternatives, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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