vm_get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It does not disclose that the VM must be running, that the operation writes to the host filesystem (local_path), whether existing files are overwritten, or any permission/authentication requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the action is stated before the examples. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 needn't be explained, but with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and three required params, the description leaves critical gaps: prerequisites, host-side side effects, and parameter meanings are all absent.

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?

All three required parameters (name, guest_path, local_path) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Pull a file out of the guest' weakly implies guest_path is the source and local_path the destination, but 'name' is entirely unexplained and no path format is given.

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 states a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('a file') with a clear source/destination relationship ('out of the guest'), and the examples (.etl trace, crash dump, test log) concretely illustrate what kind of files. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling vm_put_file, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

The examples hint at a post-test/post-run retrieval scenario, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus vm_put_file, vm_exec, or vm_log, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer the usage context.

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