Read Remote Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral trait 'Large files are clipped by maxBytes', which is not in annotations, and mentions the 'configured SSH host' context. This provides useful additional transparency beyond 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 just two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral detail (clipping). No waste, no repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read tool with complete schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential behavior (reading text, clipping). It lacks details like return format or handling of missing files, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema. Slightly more detail on encoding or return would push it to 5.

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 100%, so all parameters (host, path, maxBytes, timeoutMs) are already fully documented. The description's mention of clipping by maxBytes aligns with the schema's maxBytes description but does not add new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 'Read a text file from the configured SSH host' with the specific verb 'read' and resource 'text file from SSH host'. This distinguishes it from siblings like remote_ssh_read_file_base64 (binary/base64) and remote_ssh_list_dir (directory listing).

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 provides clear context by specifying the tool is for reading text files, implying it is not for binary files (which have a sibling tool). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 but still offers enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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