arvan_ssh_download_file

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

The description adds the truncation detail beyond annotations, which is valuable. However, it contradicts the 'readOnlyHint=false' annotation by describing a read operation. It does not discuss authentication or side effects, but the truncation disclosure is a positive.

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, which is extremely concise. It front-loads the action and key limitation. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits crucial context about authentication, truncation behavior, and error handling, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the description adds no information about any parameter. It fails to explain the roles of host, remote_path, as_base64, authentication fields, etc., leaving agents to guess parameter meanings.

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 action ('Read a file from the server via SFTP') and includes a specific behavioral detail (truncation to 256 KiB). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'arvan_ssh_upload_file' by indicating a download versus upload operation.

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 versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., SSH key access), or situations where truncation might be an issue. Agents are left to infer usage context without explicit instructions.

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