Present VM file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral fact beyond them — that the VM filesystem path is deliberately omitted from artifact metadata — and the word 'regular' signals directories are out of scope. It does not say whether content is copied or referenced, or whether size limits apply.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the metadata-privacy note.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains the return form (an opaque artifact resource) and the privacy behavior of the metadata. It is close to complete for a two-parameter tool, though it could clarify how the artifact relates to the source file.

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 both 'path' and 'name' are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the path must point to a regular file, which is marginal value.

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 gives a specific verb ('Present') plus resource ('a regular file from the Agent VM') and states the output form ('opaque MCP artifact resource'). That output form implicitly distinguishes it from read_file, which returns content, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you call this when you want a VM file exposed as an artifact rather than read inline. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as read_file or import_file.

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