pull_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The description only restates the basic operation, offering no disclosure about overwriting behavior, permission requirements, or behavior for missing paths. It is essentially a synonym for the tool name without adding behavioral nuance.

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, economical sentence that is immediately understandable. No filler or redundant 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?

The tool is simple and the schema is complete, so the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context (e.g., overwrite behavior, recursive directory pull) would increase completeness. It does not rise above a viable baseline.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema, which puts it at the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Copy'), the resource ('file or directory'), and the direction (from device to host). This distinguishes it from push_file, its obvious sibling, which copies in the opposite direction.

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 phrase 'from the connected device to the host machine' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need a file off the device). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the direction is self-explanatory and differentiates it from push_file.

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