ssh_scp_from

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scp method and mux reuse, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention that the operation performs a write to the local filesystem (a side effect of interest), potential overwrite behavior, or authentication requirements—though the schema partially covers auth via target description.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the core action, direction, method, and a behavioral detail (mux reuse). No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 is a straightforward file transfer with 5 params (80% documented) and no output schema. The description covers the essential action but lacks detail on edge cases (recursive requirements, overwrite behavior, large transfers, connection reuse implications) that would round out the picture for a tool that has side effects on the local filesystem.

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 80% high. The description itself adds little param detail, but the schema already documents target (user@host[:port] form), recursive (required for directories), and path semantics. The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Download a remote file or directory to the local machine via scp'), clearly establishing the direction of transfer and method. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_scp_to (which transfers in the opposite direction) and ssh_read_file, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 the tool is for downloads from remote to local and mentions 'reuses the multiplexed SSH connection when mux is enabled' as context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like ssh_read_file (e.g., for large files vs. quick reads) or exclusions for when not to use it.

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