ssh_file_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads raw bytes via SFTP and decodes them on the client side, returns a dictionary with success, content, size, and encoding, and imposes a default max_size limit. It could further warn about potential decoding failures for binary files, but overall it is sufficiently transparent.

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 efficiently structured: a concise one-line summary, followed by detailed explanation, a clear comparison section, and a list of return fields. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the underlying mechanism (SFTP vs command), covers parameter defaults, and lists the return value structure. The output schema exists, but the description adds clarity on the meaning of each field. No critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of encoding (decoding bytes on client side) and noting that max_size=0 means no limit. It also contextualizes why encoding matters in the usage guidelines section, providing semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Read file contents directly via SFTP', specifying both the action (read) and the resource (file via SFTP). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ssh_cmd_run with cat/Get-Content, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 includes a dedicated 'Why use this instead of ssh_cmd_run...' section that lists specific benefits (Unicode support, bypasses encoding issues, binary-safe, no shell escaping). This provides clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over a sibling. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive use cases are well-articulated.

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