file_pull

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: the VM remains locked by this session and a temporary-file commit mechanism is involved. It also notes 'allowed host path,' implying authorization constraints.

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, no fluff. The first sentence gives the core function, the second provides essential usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 provides purpose, lock/unlock obligations, and path restrictions. Given the simple parameter set and lack of output schema, this is mostly complete. The main gap is the undocumented overwrite semantics, but that is more of a parameter issue.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies guest_path and host_path indirectly ('guest file' and 'host path'), but completely omits the overwrite parameter and its behavior. This partial coverage is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('guest file to an allowed host path'). It also differentiates from siblings like file_push and directory_pull by indicating direction and scope.

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 context is clear: this is for copying guest files to host paths, and the lock/unlock requirement is stated. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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