ssh_transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions multi-host support and does not disclose file overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, error handling for unreachable hosts, or result format. This is insufficient for a mutation-heavy operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. 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?

For a multi-host file transfer tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify success/failure return behavior, per-host handling, and side effects. It only states basic functionality, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond restating upload/download capability, leaving the baseline of 3 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's function: 'Transfer files between local machine and remote SSH hosts.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of multi-host upload/download distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_list_hosts and ssh_execute.

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 usage for file transfers but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to ssh_list_hosts and ssh_execute. The multi-host support hints at use cases but does not say 'use this instead of X.'

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