ssh_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: directories are unsupported, ssh_host/ssh_port are auto-resolved, the private key stays local, and key_path defaults to an env var. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return specifics, but it covers key operational expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear statement, bullet points for directions, a limitation note, a default note, and two representative examples. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's main behavior, limitations, and examples. It does not explain user/timeout parameters or potential overwrite behavior, but the tool is simple and the output schema likely covers return values. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward file transfer 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core parameters (direction, local_path, remote_path, instance_id) and the key_path default. It omits the user and timeout parameters, but those have defaults and are secondary. The examples also illustrate parameter usage clearly.

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 transfers a single file over SFTP and distinguishes upload vs download directions. It specifies the exact resource (single file) and action (transfer), making it distinct from sibling tools like execute_command or ssh_exec.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (for single-file transfers) and explicitly notes that directories are not supported, requiring per-file calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, just missing the explicit 'when-not-to' guidance.

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