ssh_dir_transfer

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It reveals archive method and format selection, but omits critical behaviors like whether it overwrites existing directories, preserves permissions, or requires specific authentication. Partial disclosure.

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 compact with 5 lines, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, upload/download flow, and archive format selection. No redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, no annotations, presence of output schema), the description covers the process but lacks details on error handling, overwrite behavior, and permissions. Additional behavioral context would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, e.g., it doesn't specify that local_path must exist or that remote_path will be overwritten. Baseline 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 it transfers directories between local and remote systems using archive-based transfer. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_file_transfer (for files) and ssh_archive_create/extract (low-level archive ops) by focusing on directory transfer and providing process details.

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 directory transfers, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for single files) or alternatives. It does explain the archive method and OS-dependent format selection, aiding in understanding context.

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