ssh_file_list

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the recursive walk that hits the output limit says so instead of silently returning a shortened list. Additionally, the sudo parameter is described as needed for directories the profile user cannot open. These provide beyond-annotation insight into failure modes and security context.

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 compact three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then clarifies important caveats (glob narrowing, recursive limit signaling) and ends with a routing directive to ssh_file_read. No filler, every sentence provides distinct 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 read-only directory listing tool with 5 parameters all fully documented in the schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: what is returned (each entry fields), optional globbing, recursive limit behavior, and a clear pointer to the sibling for file content. No output schema exists, but the return value is adequately described by the entry fields. Complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 all parameters. The description adds a bit of context about the pattern glob ('*.conf') and the recursive limit behavior, but does not significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond implicating that pattern is optional and recursive is optional. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the added detail is marginal.

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 'Lists a directory on a server' with specific details about what each entry includes (size, mode, owner, modification time). It also distinguishes itself from sibling ssh_file_read by saying to use that for file contents, while mentioning globbing and recursive behavior. The tool name 'ssh_file_list' is fully expanded and contextualized.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To see what is inside a file, use ssh_file_read.' This is an explicit exclusion for file content. It lacks guidance on when not to use it vs other sibling tools like ssh_disk_breakdown or ssh_log_search, but the primary alternative is addressed. A 4 is appropriate since the main use case and primary alternative are clear.

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