ssh_file_transfer

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It only mentions a return dictionary with 'transfer status and metadata', but omits critical behaviors like overwrite policy, error handling, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, effectively stating purpose and return type. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the bidirectional nature (upload/download) for quicker comprehension.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is minimal. For a tool with many siblings, more context about its specific role (single file, bidirectional) and constraints (e.g., requires active connection) would benefit the agent. Current completeness is adequate but leaves 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional insight beyond 'Transfer files', which does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline score of 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 the tool's action ('Transfer files') and resources ('local and remote systems'). It distinguishes from directory-level transfers implicitly, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like ssh_dir_transfer or ssh_file_copy.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_dir_transfer for directories, ssh_file_copy for remote-to-remote). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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