ssh_stat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state there are no side effects, nor does it describe error handling, authentication failures, or path existence checks. The description is honest about what it does but lacks detail on edge cases.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences: one stating the primary function and return fields, and a second providing a practical comparison against parsing `ls -la`. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the returned metadata fields. It also provides a usage context (instead of parsing `ls -la`). However, it does not mention error scenarios (e.g., file not found), symlink behavior, or whether authentication is required beyond the parameters, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters, covering host, path, port, username, credential_id, and privateKeyPath. The description adds useful constraints like 'Must start with /' for path and 'Never pass a real password here' for credential_id, enhancing clarity beyond basic schema definitions.

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 retrieves metadata for a file or directory on a remote host via SFTP, and it specifically names the returned fields (size, permissions, uid/gid, mtime/atime, type flags). It also distinguishes itself from alternative approaches by advising against parsing `ls -la` output, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool instead of parsing `ls -la` output, giving a clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools like ssh_ls or ssh_read_file, but the guidance is sufficient for a typical use case.

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