ssh_file_find_lines_with_pattern

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return structure (dictionary with total matches and list) but does not disclose if the file is modified (assumed read-only), authentication requirements, or performance implications. Minimal but adequate for a search operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return description. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the resource, and the return value. The output schema likely provides further structural details, so description handles the rest. However, it omits prerequisite conditions (e.g., file existence, connectivity).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (path, pattern, regex flag, sudo). No elaboration on how pattern matching works or how output is structured beyond what is stated.

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 ('Search for a pattern'), the resource ('remote file'), and the specific outcome ('return matching lines'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_file_read (reads entire file) and ssh_dir_search_files_content (searches across directory).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_dir_search_files_content for directory-wide search, ssh_file_read for full file content). The description implies single-file pattern matching but does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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