ssh_file_read

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: unreadable files are reported with the reason, never returned as empty or truncated content, and multiple files can be read in one call. These are useful operational details not captured by the annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and batch capability are front-loaded, followed by error behavior and an alternative tool reference. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is clean.

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?

With a rich schema that documents all parameters, the description covers the core behavior (batch read, error handling) and names an alternative. Since there is no output schema, the error-behavior note partially clarifies return semantics, though the exact response structure isn't specified. For a read-only tool, this is adequate and nothing critical is missing.

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% — every parameter (path, sudo, binary, profile, encoding) has a detailed schema description with defaults and enums where applicable. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so this dimension sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('reads') and resource ('text files from a server') and highlights the batch capability ('several of them in one call'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ssh_log_search, but does not address other siblings like ssh_file_list or ssh_file_write, so differentiation is partial.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative: 'To look for something inside logs rather than read them, ssh_log_search greps on the server.' This is clear when-not-to-use guidance for one specific scenario, but it does not mention when to use ssh_file_list or other file tools, so coverage is limited.

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