ssh_read_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return is an MCP image and supports 'common raster formats,' but doesn't disclose what happens with unsupported formats (error? fallback?), size limits, transfer speed expectations, or how large images are handled. For a remote file operation, this is thin behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Concise and to the point. Could arguably be considered under-specified, but for a simple read tool the brevity is reasonable.

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?

The tool has 2 well-documented params, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects, no output schema. For a simple read operation, the description's coverage is adequate but not rich. It lacks details about error handling for unsupported formats, size considerations, or the distinction in return type vs ssh_read_file. Middle-of-range is fair.

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% with both parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Read a remote image and return it as an MCP image.' It specifies the format scope ('common raster formats') and distinguishes from ssh_read_file by doing image decoding and returning an image type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with ssh_read_file, which reads raw bytes, leaving some ambiguity about the key difference.

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 on when to use this vs ssh_read_file or scp alternatives. It doesn't state that ssh_read_file is for raw text/binary reads, nor that scp_from might be better for large downloads. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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