ssh_list_remote_dir

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

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the method (SFTP) and return structure (list of dicts with name, size, timestamp, is_dir). It implicitly indicates a non-destructive read operation, but could explicitly state no side effects or safe to call.

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 very concise with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. Ideal length for an MCP tool.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema provided), the description is nearly complete. It covers parameters and return format. Could be improved by noting error conditions or path restrictions, but overall sufficient.

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 adds meaning: it explains session_id as coming from ssh_connect, and remote_path with default '.' as current directory. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's type and default.

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 ('List files and directories at a path') and the resource ('remote host via SFTP'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_download_file or ssh_read_remote_file by focusing on enumeration.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be active) or alternatives among siblings. The description assumes the agent already knows the context.

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