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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic copy operation without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting local files), permission requirements, error conditions, or whether it works on directories. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the action and direction. It is concise and immediately scannable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits details like whether the local file is overwritten, what happens if the remote file does not exist, or if the device serial is required when multiple devices are connected (though the schema implies it is optional). An agent has limited information to anticipate outcomes or handle edge cases.

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 33% (serial is described, remote_path and local_path are not). The description adds directional context that clarifies remote_path is on the device and local_path is on the local machine, which partially compensates. However, it does not specify path formats, whether they must be absolute, or any constraints beyond the implied device/local distinction.

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 'Copy a file from the device to the local machine' uses a clear verb (copy) and resource (file from device to local), making the purpose unmistakable. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling push_file, which copies in the opposite direction, so the tool's scope is distinct.

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 the use case (transferring a file from device to local) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like push_file or adb_shell. There are no exclusions or explicit 'use when' guidance; the direction of transfer is the only implicit differentiator.

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