ssh_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the tool reads a file and supports partial reading. It does not clarify if the file is modified, authentication requirements, or error behavior. However, the read-only nature is implied, and the offset/limit feature adds some transparency.

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 a single sentence with 13 words, immediately stating the core purpose. It is efficiently written with no filler, earning maximum points for conciseness.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic functionality but omits return value details (e.g., format of file content) and potential pitfalls like large file handling. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented via descriptions. The tool description only reiterates the offset/limit feature without adding new meaning beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

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 reads a file on a remote server and highlights support for partial reading with offset and limit. This specific verb ('lee') and resource ('archivo') distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like ssh_write_file or ssh_download.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as comparing it to ssh_download for larger transfers or ssh_exec for processing file content. It fails to mention when partial reading is beneficial or when to avoid this tool.

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