ssh_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it wraps find, but doesn't disclose that it's a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any side effects (e.g., permission errors, handling of no matches). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. It's appropriately concise, though it could have included more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.

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 a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It leaves out crucial context such as return format, error behavior, timeout handling, authentication nuances, and the exact semantics of options like maxdepth or newer. An agent would need to make many assumptions.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond a generic reference to 'structured parameters'. It doesn't clarify unusual parameters like newer or the size constraints beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it searches for files on a remote host, which is a specific verb and resource. It also notes it wraps the find command, giving a concrete conceptual anchor. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_ls, though the 'search' wording implies a find-like operation.

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 explains the motivation—avoiding manual find syntax—which gives a reason to use it. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ssh_exec for ad-hoc commands or ssh_ls for simple directory listings. There's no mention of when not to use it, leaving the decision partly implicit.

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