ssh_list_dir

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing), which is a useful behavioral signal, but doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens on permission-denied or nonexistent path), or confirm whether it's a non-destructive operation. For a read-only tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output style with zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a straightforward read-only list operation with only 2 parameters, both fully covered by the schema. No output schema exists, but the ls -lAh style hint effectively communicates what the return will contain. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough.

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 both parameters (target and path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already captures—such as the default '.' for path. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('a remote directory'), and specifies the ls -lAh metadata style which adds precision. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like ssh_read_file or ssh_grep, but the directory-listing scope is clear enough that a knowledgeable agent would distinguish it.

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 implies this is for listing remote directories but doesn't state when to prefer it over alternatives or what context makes it appropriate. Given the sibling suite includes ssh_read_file, ssh_exec, and grep, some when-to-use guidance (e.g., for inspection without reading file contents) would help, but the read-only listing purpose is reasonably self-evident.

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