ssh_tail_file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral context: output is capped, timeout is 30 seconds, SSH credentials are private server-side configuration, and the agent must never ask for a password. It does not detail failure modes or timeout results, but the annotations already cover the read-only nature.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact, with the purpose front-loaded. It could be slightly tightened by combining the two credential-related sentences, but there is no filler.

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 purpose, output boundaries, timeout, authentication constraints, and fallback routing. It lacks explicit failure/timeout behavior and return format, but for a simple tail-file tool this is an adequate and practical level of detail.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the path refers to a remote log file and that the behavior is tail-like, but the exact meaning of the `lines` parameter is still left mostly to the schema and parameter name.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('remote log file'), and tail semantics ('last lines'). This cleanly distinguishes it from ssh_read_file (full file) and ssh_list_servers (alias discovery).

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?

Explicitly says to use ssh_list_servers when the user has not supplied an exact configured alias, and gives clear credentials guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with ssh_read_file for full-file reads, leaving a small when-not gap.

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