Run Program in Guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only that the launch can be asynchronous and that a full path is required, both of which are already present in the schema. It does not describe return behavior, stdout/stderr, default waiting behavior, or failure semantics.

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?

Two sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves important behavioral and selection details uncovered.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It leaves timeout_seconds undocumented, does not describe expected return behavior, and does not explain when to prefer this over guest_run_command.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the full-path requirement for program but does not add meaning for timeout_seconds, argument passing, or how no_wait interacts with the overall execution.

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 action and object: 'Launch a program inside the guest VM' and adds the requirement of a full path. It is clear about the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling guest_run_command, so it stops short of 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 no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The mention of no_wait and full path is a capability note, not selection guidance, and the close sibling guest_run_command could easily be chosen instead.

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