vm_guest_exec_output

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

The description discloses the internal process: OS detection, temp file redirection, download, and cleanup. This adds value beyond annotations, which indicate write behavior but not the specific non-destructive temp file handling.

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 starts with a concise summary of purpose, then provides behavioral details, return values, and arguments. It is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded and logically structured, with no superfluous information.

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 main flow, return fields, and parameters. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., VM must be powered on, guest tools) and error handling details, which are important for a write operation 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description lists parameters with helpful context (e.g., command as shell command, timeout default, target optional). It adds meaning but could clarify authentication fields and timeout units more explicitly.

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 executes a shell command inside a VM and captures stdout/stderr. It distinguishes from siblings like vm_guest_exec by detailing the output capture mechanism, making its specific verb and resource clear.

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 implies usage for executing commands and capturing output, but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as vm_guest_exec (likely without capture). No exclusions or context for sibling differentiation are provided.

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