ssh_read_file

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is read-only ('Read') and mentions SFTP transport, but does not disclose error handling, auth requirements, or return format. It adds some behavioral context about offset and limit support, but lacks depth on what happens in edge cases. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough 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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the supporting detail about offset and limits. No unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity and that the schema covers parameter details, the description provides the essential purpose and use case. It does not mention error conditions or binary file handling, but for a read operation these are minor. The lack of an output schema means the agent must infer return value, but 'read contents' implies the file text. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces the purpose of offsetLines and maxLines for log inspection, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool reads remote file contents over SFTP, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling write/list/execute tools by focusing on read-only file access. The mention of offset and line limits adds specificity for large files.

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?

It identifies the use case (inspecting log files and large config files) which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ssh_execute_command or ssh_write_file, so there are no exclusions mentioned. This earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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