ssh_scp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions copying but does not disclose behaviors like recursive handling, authentication requirements, or side effects such as overwriting. The schema reveals parameters like timeout and strict_host_key_checking, but the description adds no context about these behaviors.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It neither explains return values, error handling, nor usage scenarios. The tool is more complex than the description suggests, and the lack of context around security, recursion, or path handling leaves significant gaps.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema; it does not explain the unannotated parameters (port, direction, identity_file, known_hosts_file). The schema itself provides descriptions for most parameters, but the tool description does not compensate for the gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Copy') and clearly identifies the resource (files or directories) and the direction (between local machine and remote target). It also names the underlying mechanism ('local scp client'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_exec or ssh_sync.

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 implies usage for file transfer but does not explicitly state when to prefer scp over sync (ssh_sync) or other transfer tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though the purpose itself gives a clear context.

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