sftp_read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state permission/auth requirements, whether the file is read as text or binary, encoding, size limits, or what happens on a missing path — all of which matter for a remote file read.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description should tell the agent what comes back (file contents? encoding? error shape?) and that a connection must exist first. Neither is present, leaving the agent guessing about the most important outcome of the call.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Полный путь к файлу на сервере'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Прочитать') and resource ('файл') plus the transport ('через SFTP'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like sftp_write_file and sftp_delete. It does not, however, say anything about scope or format (text vs binary) that would fully distinguish it from the other SFTP read-adjacent siblings such as sftp_list_dir.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious precondition that an SFTP session must already be established (sftp_connect is a sibling). The agent must infer all routing and sequencing on its own.

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