ssh_create_remote_directory

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create directory' without addressing side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), permission requirements, idempotency, or return values. The schema hints at recursive creation via the 'parents' default, but the description itself adds no behavioral insight.

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 efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without fluff. It is appropriately short, though some users might prefer slight expansion for context. The conciseness is good, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) is neutral here.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the tool's role within the SSH toolset (e.g., that it relies on an existing connection), nor does it clarify edge cases like directory already existing. The schema carries the entire explanatory burden, leaving gaps for the agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters or provide examples. It adds no value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already define 'mode', 'parents', etc. Thus, the description neither improves nor degrades parameter understanding.

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 '在远程服务器上创建目录' clearly states the tool's action (create) and resource (directory on remote server). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_list_remote_directory (listing) and ssh_remove_remote_file (removing), 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_list_remote_directory or ssh_upload_file. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active SSH connection) or scenarios where creation might fail. The description offers no usage context beyond the bare action.

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