ssh_tail

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

The description only mentions 'real-time' behavior but fails to disclose that it opens an SSH connection, may block indefinitely, or that it relies on the remote system's 'tail' command. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient for understanding the tool's operational impact.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include output format or connection details without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., lines of text, streaming output). Given the complexity (real-time streaming via SSH), the description is incomplete, lacking mention of connection lifetime, termination, or error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the input schema. The tool-level description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 ('Tail') and resource ('remote log files'), and the real-time aspect is implied by 'tail'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., ssh_execute, ssh_service_status) as a log-viewing utility, though it could be more explicit about the 'tail' command's behavior.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_execute (to run commands manually) or ssh_download (to download files). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other log-related tools among siblings.

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