ssh_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'read' and the tail/grep semantics imply a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose SSH authentication expectations (credential_id vs privateKeyPath vs username), failure behavior on missing files or unreachable hosts, or the fact that all non-required params have defaults. The schema partially compensates by documenting each parameter, including the security warning on credential_id.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states the operation, the second gives the recommended use case and the alternative to avoid. The core purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 moderately complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and primary use case while the schema thoroughly documents all parameters, including secure handling of credential_id. It does not hint at the return format since no output schema exists, but that gap is minor for a straightforward read-only tail operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the mapping of 'last N lines' to the lines parameter and 'grep pattern' to the grep parameter, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('file on a remote host'), and quantifies the behavior ('last N lines' with optional 'grep pattern' filtering). It explicitly differentiates itself from ssh_exec by noting it should be used 'instead of ssh_exec with manual tail/grep commands,' so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 second sentence provides actionable context: use this for 'reading log files' and names the alternative to avoid ('ssh_exec with manual tail/grep commands'). However, it does not state exclusions such as whole-file reads (which would route to ssh_read_file) or live-following scenarios, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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