ssh_read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool 'uses cat', which hints at output behavior but does not state whether SSH credentials are required, what happens on missing files, error behavior, or that the operation is read-only.

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 very short, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every element ('Read a remote file', 'direct hosts only', 'uses cat') adds value and fits in a single compact sentence.

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?

This is a simple 3-parameter read operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description is minimally viable: 'cat' implies the file content is returned, and host/file parameters are reasonably self-explanatory. However, it does not explain return format, failure behavior, timeout handling, or permissions.

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 for parameter meaning. It marginally helps by indicating host_id refers to a direct host and filePath is the remote file, but timeoutMs is completely undocumented, and no parameter-specific details such as formats or constraints are provided.

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 verb and resource: 'Read a remote file'. It adds a useful qualifier ('direct hosts only') and an implementation hint ('uses cat'), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ssh_exec, which could also read files by executing commands.

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 phrase 'direct hosts only' provides an implicit scope limitation and some usage context, suggesting it is not for indirect/proxied hosts. Yet the description offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, such as 'use ssh_write_file to write' or 'use ssh_exec for arbitrary commands'.

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