ssh_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses file return fields (size_bytes, total_lines), default 20KB truncation, view_range bypass, force_read_large_files behavior, and directory depth/visibility limits. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds behavioral detail without fluff. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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?

For an 11-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary use cases and important behavioral details: file output, directory listing, truncation, and paging. It omits the exact return format for directories and some edge cases, but it is adequate given standard SSH parameters are self-explanatory.

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 73%, so the description adds meaning by explaining how max_bytes, view_range, and force_read_large_files interact with truncation. However, most parameters (port, identity_file, timeout, etc.) rely on the schema or are self-explanatory, and the description doesn't compensate for uncovered parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read a remote file or list a remote directory over SSH,' which immediately conveys purpose and scope. It also notes it is the 'remote counterpart of the local file-viewing tool,' distinguishing it from siblings like ssh_exec or ssh_grep.

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?

Clear context is provided: use for reading files or listing directories, and use view_range to page through large files instead of reading the truncated default. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion criteria, but the usage is well-scoped and practical.

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