ssh-read-lines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool reads lines and emphasizes token efficiency, but does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or confirm read-only nature. The name implies a safe operation, but more detail is needed for full transparency.

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, concise sentence that includes an important trait (token efficiency). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with usage hints.

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 read tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the basic purpose and a key benefit. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, error conditions, or when to use alternatives, leaving some gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a general note about token efficiency but does not clarify parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Read specific lines from remote files' clearly states the action and resource. The name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like ssh-edit-block, ssh-write-chunk, etc., which perform different operations.

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 hints at a use case ('token-efficient for large files') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to siblings.

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