extract_with_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses root requirement and potential security alerts, which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe side effects such as file permissions, whether local directories are created, or error handling, leaving some ambiguity. Credits given for the warning about security alerts.

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 compact and well-structured, with purpose, arguments, and warning clearly separated. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and important warnings in a concise manner. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, and the absence of annotations leaves a few behavior aspects unclear, but overall it's fairly complete.

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's Args section is essential. It clearly explains each parameter, gives an example for remote_path, and marks device_id as optional. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb-object statement ('Extract files using root privileges') and adds contextual purpose ('Bypasses Android security restrictions for forensic acquisition'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools handling logs, packages, or processes.

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?

It provides clear context for use: forensic acquisition requiring root privileges, and warns about root requirement and security alerts. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it's clear context but no exclusions.

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