vm_exec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses argument-parsing behavior, backslash preservation, and that a missing agent produces an explanatory error, but it does not describe the execution profile (arbitrary code execution, permission requirements) or what the timeout parameter controls.

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?

Front-loads the core action before args mechanics and Windows-specific notes; each sentence carries information. Slightly dense in the middle but no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the agent-requirement plus arg semantics are covered. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the timeout and name/path semantics remain unexplained, leaving gaps for an execution tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It explains the 'args' parameter thoroughly (whitespace splitting, quote handling, Windows paths) but leaves 'name', 'path', and 'timeout' completely undocumented, so only one of four parameters is addressed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run a command inside the guest') and the mechanism (QEMU guest agent), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like vm_sendkey or test_app_in_vm. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, keeping it short of a 5.

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 usage context (qemu-ga must be installed, Windows guests should call cmd.exe with /c) and recovery guidance when the agent is missing, but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as vm_sendkey or test_app_in_vm. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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