ssh_read_file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behaviors: default 1 MiB limit, hard 5 MiB max, truncation of oversized text, rejection of binary content, and that SSH credentials are private server-side configuration. This adds substantial safety and edge-case awareness for the agent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose and size limits, and each sentence earns its place—no filler or repetition of schema fields that are already self-explanatory.

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?

The description covers size limits, content type validation, credential handling, and server selection guidance. It doesn't describe the success output format or error cases (e.g., file not found, permission denied), but the readOnly and openWorld annotations partially offload that burden. For a simple read-file tool, it is largely complete.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the server parameter (exact alias, use ssh_list_servers), maxBytes (size limits and truncation behavior), and path (regular UTF-8 file). It doesn't add explicit format constraints for path beyond the schema, but it provides meaningful context for two of the three parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Read a remote UTF-8 regular file through SFTP') and identifies the resource and scope. It also names ssh_list_servers as a fallback, helping an agent distinguish this tool from siblings like ssh_tail_file or ssh_stat.

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 gives clear context by mentioning server alias selection and explicitly instructs the agent to use ssh_list_servers when the user hasn't provided an alias, and never to ask for a password. It doesn't explicitly contrast with ssh_tail_file or other read-type alternatives, so the guidance stops short of being fully explicit.

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