SSH MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying the SFTP protocol, timeout behavior with default, connection selection logic, and return format details. It explains what happens with relative vs absolute paths and describes the comprehensive return dictionary structure.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value - no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of parameters, behavior, and return values. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning error conditions or edge cases, but it's otherwise comprehensive for this complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in detail: remote_path as absolute path, local_path with guidance on absolute vs relative paths, timeout with default value, and connection_name with default behavior. It adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('使用SFTP协议从远程服务器下载文件到本地' - download files from remote server to local using SFTP protocol), identifies the resource (remote files), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file. It's precise about the protocol and direction of transfer.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (SFTP file downloads) and implicitly distinguishes it from upload_file for the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives like execute_command for different remote operations.

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