ssh_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects ('overwriting any existing local file'), remote-side scope ('read-only on the remote side'), permission requirements ('configured SSH user, which must have permission to read it'), and operational constraints (single file only).

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?

Three information-dense sentences front-load the action, then add constraints and alternatives in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers action, side effects, permission requirements, security-mode compatibility, and the directory alternative. An agent has enough to decide when to use it and how to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description augments the schema by explaining that localPath will be overwritten and that remotePath must be readable by the SSH user, which adds meaningful operational context to the parameter behaviors.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Downloads one remote file from the named server to a local destination path over SFTP.' It explicitly clarifies the single-file scope and points to ssh_sync for directories, making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like ssh_upload and ssh_sync.

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?

It directly states when to use the tool versus alternatives: 'Handles single files only; use ssh_sync for directories.' It also provides a contextual prerequisite—allowed even on servers in readonly or restricted security mode—which helps the agent decide suitability without external lookup.

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