directory_pull

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable nuance: it states that unrelated host files are not deleted, clarifies the merge-copy nature, and discloses the VM lock side effect with a follow-up unlock instruction. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with the exact operation and its key guarantee. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, safety nuance, and lock lifecycle, but it omits the behavior of the overwrite parameter and provides no information about return values or error conditions. Without an output schema or richer parameter docs, these gaps reduce completeness for a moderate-complexity 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping 'guest directory' to guest_path and 'host path' to host_path. However, it fails to explain the overwrite parameter, which is critical for understanding merge-copy behavior, so the semantics remain incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb 'Merge-copy' and clearly identifies the resource (guest directory) and target (allowed host path). It distinguishes from siblings like file_pull and directory_push by emphasizing merge-copy semantics and the explicit preservation of unrelated host files.

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 description provides clear context: when copying a guest directory to the host while preserving existing files, and it warns that the VM remains locked, directing the agent to call vm_unlock afterward. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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