file_pull

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: writes go through a verified temporary-file commit, and the VM remains locked until vm_unlock is called. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and required follow-up. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the lock/unlock warning earns its place as essential operational context.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description captures the core workflow, safety mechanism, and lock obligation. The main gaps are the unspecified rules for 'allowed host path' and unstated overwrite behavior, but the annotations and lock guidance make the tool largely usable as described.

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 only 25%, and the description only minimally compensates by clarifying that host_path is an 'allowed host path' and guest_path is a guest file. The overwrite parameter, path syntax, and the meaning of 'allowed' are left unexplained, so an agent gets little parameter-level guidance beyond names.

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 operation: copy a guest file to a host path. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like file_push and directory_pull by specifying direction and single-file scope. The 'verified temporary-file commit' detail adds precision without confusing the core purpose.

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 lock-related warning implies this tool is used during a locked VM session and that vm_unlock must follow, but the description never explicitly says when to choose file_pull over alternatives such as file_push or directory_pull. The usage context is partially clear but excludes no alternatives.

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