ssh_download

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

Describes binary-safe streaming behavior and file type preservation. With no annotations, the description should cover more side effects like overwrite policy, permissions, or error scenarios. Missing key behavioral details.

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?

Two tight sentences plus an Args list. Front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Covers direction, protocol, binary safety, and sibling alternative. Missing overwrite behavior and error handling, but for a simple download tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds all parameter meanings: remote_path as file path, local_dir with default ~/Downloads, host as alias with default null. This compensates for 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 tool downloads a file from remote to local, specifies binary-safe and SFTP, and distinguishes from sibling ssh_upload by mentioning the reverse direction.

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 tells when to use this tool vs ssh_upload (sending the other way). Lacks guidance comparing to ssh_read_file for text files or mentioning precautions for large files, but the single alternative is well-addressed.

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