ssh_file_exists

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds valuable context: returns existence status, type, size, and permissions. No contradictions, and description enriches behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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?

Description is three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose and an illustrative example. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple existence check tool, the description adequately covers purpose, return values (existence, type, size, permissions), and an example. Output schema is present, so return format is covered externally. Complete for the task.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. Description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema (e.g., formatting, constraints). Example shows usage but no additional parameter details. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states action ('Check if a file or directory exists') and specifies the resource ('remote server'). It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_list_dir and ssh_read_file by focusing on existence and metadata.

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 purpose is implied, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_list_dir for listing contents). The example provides usage context but no when-not scenarios.

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