ssh_read_file

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

With no annotations at all, the description must bear the full weight of transparency, and it only partially does. It conveys the line-limiting defaults but omits critical behavioral context: whether this is a safe read-only operation (contrast with ssh_write_file/ssh_delete), error behavior for missing files or permissions, and handling of non-UTF-8/binary content despite the UTF-8 claim.

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?

Exceptionally concise and efficient: two short sentences that pack the core purpose plus range semantics without redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the most consequential parameter behaviors.

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?

Given 4 fully documented params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. The 200-line default and line-range semantics are valuable additions, but the tool lacks disclosure about return value structure and error conditions (missing file, permission denied, binary content) that the agent would benefit from knowing before invoking.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does provide a helpful synthesis of offset/limit ('1-based line range; limit=0 means unlimited') that clarifies the interplay beyond the individual schema descriptions, but it doesn't add fundamentally new parameter context beyond what the well-documented 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 states a specific verb+resource combination ('Read a UTF-8 text file from a remote host') and then clarifies line-range semantics. It clearly distinguishes from siblings: ssh_read_image (image files), ssh_grep (search), ssh_list_dir (directory listing), and ssh_write_file (write operation). Purpose is precise and contextually differentiated.

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 clearly explains the offset/limit semantics and default behavior, giving the agent practical guidance on how to invoke the tool for partial reads. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over ssh_grep or ssh_read_image, but the parameter explanations combined with clear sibling differentiation in names provide adequate usage context.

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