sftp_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it mostly restates the read operation. It does not state that the remote file is unmodified, how the contents are returned, whether binary files are supported, or what errors might occur.

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?

A single 14-word sentence with no filler; the core verb and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately short, even though this brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral context.

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 two-parameter tool the invocation shape is simple, but there is no output schema and the description never explicitly states the return value format or how this tool differs from sftp_download. Given the sibling ambiguity and lack of annotations, the description is not complete enough for confident tool selection.

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%, with clear descriptions for remotePath ('Absolute path to the remote file') and connectionId ('The connection ID'), so the schema documents both parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'contents of a file on a connected remote host via SFTP', so the core operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling sftp_download, which could also handle file-retrieval requests.

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 guidance is given about when to choose sftp_read over siblings such as sftp_download or sftp_list. The phrase 'connected remote host' implies an existing connection, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions.

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