ssh_file_stat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the return dictionary structure, including fields like 'exists', 'type', 'mode', etc. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the behavior (read-only stat) is implied and consistent.

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: one for purpose and one listing return fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no enums) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks error or permission context, but that is minor for a stat tool.

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 schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'path' ('File or directory path to get information about'). The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema offers, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get status information about a file or directory.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status information', differentiating it from siblings that read content (e.g., ssh_file_read) or list directories (e.g., ssh_dir_list_advanced).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_file_read or ssh_dir_list_advanced. It implies usage for file metadata, but lacks guidance on exclusions or comparative context.

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