pull_adb_file

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the local copy must not already exist and that the operation is read-only with respect to the device, clarifying why readOnlyHint is false overall. It also mentions SHA-256 digesting, adding useful behavioral context, though it does not describe failure handling or exact return values.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every clause adds relevant scope, precondition, or behavior without wasted wording.

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 definition covers the core action, input constraints, device-side safety, and SHA-256 behavior, which is sufficient to invoke the tool. With no output schema, it could better describe the returned artifact or digest, and it omits the optional analysis_project_id semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents serial, device_path, output_directory, and analysis_project_id. The description adds example file types and confirms the output-directory precondition, but does not explain the optional analysis_project_id or add syntax beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: pull one absolute device path into a caller-selected output directory. It distinguishes the tool from package-oriented siblings by naming database, shared-preferences XML, or any readable file, and adds SHA-256 digesting as part of the action.

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 gives clear usage context: a single absolute device path, a caller-selected local directory, and the precondition that the local copy must not already exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as pull_adb_package or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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