remote-ssh-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Download') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (implied by 'session_id'), file transfer behavior (e.g., overwriting, error handling), or performance considerations (e.g., large files, network limits). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool that writes to the local filesystem.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of a file download operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., file saved locally) or failure (e.g., error messages), nor does it cover side effects like local file overwriting. For a tool that modifies the local filesystem, more behavioral context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented (e.g., format examples, path conventions, or session lifecycle details). This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter meanings.

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 action ('Download') and resource ('a file from remote server via SFTP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scp_upload' or 'ssh_read_buffer', which would require mentioning it's specifically for file transfer rather than command execution or session management.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session from 'ssh_connect'), differentiate from 'scp_upload' (upload vs. download), or explain when to choose this over 'ssh_read_buffer' for reading files. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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