Check Guest File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only restates the existence check. It does not state whether the tool returns a boolean, raises an error for missing files, how directories are treated, or whether VMware Tools is required.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is as concise as a tool definition should be.

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 simple check tool, the core purpose is conveyed, but there is no output schema and no stated return/error convention. The optional vm parameter's default behavior is also not explained, leaving minor gaps for correct invocation.

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%: vm and guest_path are both described meaningfully in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable at the baseline 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('check if exists') and resource ('file inside guest VM'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling guest_directory_exists and read/delete/rename variants. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 wording implies it should be used as a prerequisite check before reading, deleting, or copying guest files, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent must infer selection.

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