ssh_upload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral constraint — the remote target must be an absolute path — but says nothing about overwriting existing files, permission failures, or directory creation.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and target with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the essentials (overwrite semantics, connection prerequisites, error behavior) are missing. The description is adequate to invoke the tool but incomplete for predicting its side effects.

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 carry the load. It clarifies that localPath is a local file and remotePath is an absolute remote path, which adds real meaning, but gives no format examples, path syntax, or escaping details.

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 (上传/upload) and resource (本地文件 -> 远程 SSH 主机绝对路径), which is precise enough to separate it from ssh_download. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops 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?

There is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (e.g., must already have an SSH connection established), and no mention of alternatives such as ssh_download or ssh_exec. The intended use can only be inferred from the verb.

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