ssh_download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the write target is the local absolute path and an existing local file causes a refusal rather than a silent overwrite. It does not mention permissions, partial-transfer behavior, or error surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering direction, destination semantics, and the no-overwrite rule with zero filler. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and only two required parameters, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly: transfer direction, parameter roles, and the failure condition. It omits what a successful transfer returns and any connection/prerequisite context, which would complete the picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies that localPath is an absolute path and that remotePath refers to a path on the remote host. It adds no format/syntax detail (e.g., whether remotePath is relative to home, glob support), leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('从远程 SSH 主机下载文件到本地绝对路径'), making the transfer direction unambiguous, which implicitly separates it from the sibling ssh_upload. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 embeds one useful usage condition (refuses to overwrite an existing local file), which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it gives no guidance on choosing this over ssh_upload/ssh_exec or on required connection context, so usage is only implied.

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