ssh_dir_list_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (list of dictionaries with file/directory information) but lacks details on permissions required, error handling, performance implications of recursion, or effects of the `use_sudo` parameter. This is minimal transparency for a tool with potentially expensive operations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences: one for purpose and one for return type. It is front-loaded with the most important information. However, the return type description could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for improved clarity.

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 that an output schema is indicated as present, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it still lacks information about error handling, potential performance issues with recursive listing, and behavior of the `use_sudo` parameter. With three parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 covers all three parameters (path, max_depth, use_sudo) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'List contents of a directory recursively with detailed information,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (directory contents recursively). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool `ssh_dir_list_files_basic`, which likely provides a non-recursive or basic 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 implies usage for recursive listing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like `ssh_dir_list_files_basic` or provide conditions for use. There are no when-not or alternative recommendations.

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