esxi_guest_files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description reinforces destructiveness by listing delete and move, and adds a useful warning about not sending large base64 through the LLM. However, it does not explain what gets destroyed, authentication requirements, or rate limits, so it adds only moderate context beyond annotations.

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, front-loading the action list and then the transfer guidance. It is highly concise with no wasted words. The mixed Chinese/English phrasing is slightly cryptic but still compact and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters (5 required), nested objects, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain required parameters like authentication, expected_name, or the structure of arguments, leaving the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but input documentation is severely lacking.

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 0% for all 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly hints at the action parameter's possible values (list, mkdir, delete, move, attributes, upload_url, download_url). It says nothing about vm_id, expected_name, authentication, arguments, dry_run, or request_id, leaving most parameters completely undocumented.

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 lists specific guest file operations (list/mkdir/delete/move/attributes/upload_url/download_url), making the purpose clear as a multi-action guest file management tool. It distinguishes itself from transfer-related siblings by directing HTTP transfers to transfer_start(kind=guest). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other guest tools like esxi_guest_process.

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?

It provides one clear usage rule: for HTTP transfers use transfer_start(kind=guest) instead of passing large base64 through the LLM. This is a valuable alternative path. But it lacks broader when-to-use guidance, such as when to use this tool versus esxi_datastore_transfer or esxi_guest_process, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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