ssh_dir_search_glob

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

Without annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It mentions recursion but omits details like permissions, error handling, or performance implications. The return type is mentioned but not enriched.

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 two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 output schema exists, return details are covered. However, the description lacks context for parameters like path, include_dirs, and use_sudo. It is adequate but could better integrate parameter usage guidance.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'pattern' and 'recursively' which are already in parameter descriptions.

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 'Recursively search for files matching a pattern', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_dir_search_files_content and ssh_file_find_lines_with_pattern which search by content.

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 like ssh_dir_list_files_basic or ssh_dir_search_files_content. No exclusions or context for choice are given.

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