vm_guest_exec_output

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

The description discloses that the tool redirects output to a temp file, downloads it, and cleans up, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description does not contradict annotations and provides additional detail about the implementation.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, bulleted process explanation, and a clear Args list. Every sentence provides value, and there is no verbose or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description lists return fields (exit_code, stdout, stderr, timed_out, os_family). It explains the execution flow and OS detection. For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete, though it could mention that the command may have side effects on the VM.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an Args section that explains each parameter: vm_name, command, username (default 'root'), password, timeout (default 300), target (optional). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults, fully covering all six parameters.

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 'Execute a shell command inside a VM and capture stdout + stderr.' It uses a specific verb (Execute) and resource (VM guest), and the [WRITE] tag distinguishes it from read-only siblings like vm_guest_download. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from vm_guest_exec by emphasizing output capture.

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 explains the automatic OS detection and output capture mechanism, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like vm_guest_exec for fire-and-forget commands. The guidance is clear but lacks exclutions.

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