ssh_glob

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable details beyond the name: enumerates via remote find, skips .git/.hg/.svn directories, performs matching locally, and explains the dot-file matching rule. It does not mention potential performance implications or return format, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, pattern syntax, and behavioral details (VCS skipping, local matching, dot rule). There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: matching semantics, base directory, and VCS exclusion. It does not explicitly state the return format, but that is inferred from 'Find'. The description is largely sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and how to construct patterns.

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 70%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the glob pattern syntax ('*', '?', '[seq]', '{a,b}', '**'), the special dot-segment matching rule, and clarifies that enumeration happens under 'path'. This goes well beyond the schema's simple 'Glob pattern to match' and 'Remote base directory to search under.'

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's purpose: 'Find remote files by name pattern over SSH' with the specific verb 'Find' and resource 'remote files'. It also differentiates itself by calling itself 'the remote counterpart of the local filename-pattern tool,' distinguishing it from other SSH operations like exec or scp.

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 description provides clear context that this is the remote counterpart to a local filename-pattern tool, implying it should be used when you need to find files by name pattern over SSH. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools (e.g., ssh_grep), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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