vm_agent_file_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the basic operation without mentioning error handling, file size limits, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). The description does not add value beyond the obvious.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, listing parameters in a clear format. No wasted words, but it could be more structured (e.g., separating behavior from args).

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's simplicity (3 params, straightforward read operation) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits common expectations like error scenarios, synchronous vs async nature, and guest agent requirements.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only provides minimal restatements: 'node: The node name.', 'vmid: The VM ID.', 'file: Absolute file path inside the guest.' Only the 'file' parameter gets a slight hint (absolute path), while others lack format or constraints.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Read', resource 'file inside VM', and method 'guest agent', clearly defining its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_agent_file_write and vm_agent_exec.

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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., guest agent must be running), and no comparison with similar tools. Users must infer context from sibling names.

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