pull_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that small text files are returned inline and that polling/waiting is supported, but says nothing about error behavior, permissions, or what happens for large files (only inferable from the schema's destination default).

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain results more fully. It notes small text files come back inline but leaves unclear what happens to non-text/large files (written to destination) and how failures surface.

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 83% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of waiting-for-appearance and 'after the last launch_app' loosely maps to waitSeconds and modifiedAfter, adding some meaning, but the schema already documents these params thoroughly.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (a file out of an app's data container to the Mac), which clearly distinguishes it from list_app_files, the sibling that enumerates rather than extracts. The distinction is implicit rather than named, so not a full 5.

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 through the waiting modes ('wait for the file to appear, or to be written after the last launch_app'), but never explicitly says when to choose pull_file over list_app_files or other siblings. Guidance is implied, not stated.

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