ssh_get_remote_file_info

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose what information is returned (e.g., file size, permissions, modification time) or any side effects. It only states the input parameters.

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?

Single sentence in Chinese is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy, though a bit more detail would not hurt.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what information is retrieved (e.g., file type, size, permissions). It does not, leaving the agent guessing about the return value. For a tool with two simple params, this is incomplete.

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% with minimal descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema is present but description does not enhance 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 clearly states 'get remote file or directory information'. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_list_remote_directory (lists contents) and ssh_get_command_status (command status), 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_list_remote_directory for listing directory contents. Also missing prerequisites like requiring an active SSH connection.

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