quest_pull

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 mentions the operation direction but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing files, requires permissions, or whether the source file is left intact. The description lacks behavioral details such as error handling, side effects, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the verb, resource, and direction efficiently. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical example adds useful context without redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too brief to be complete. It does not address multi-device handling via device_id, potential conflicts with existing local files, or how it relates to sibling tools like quest_logs. The tool is simple, but the lack of behavioral and parametric detail makes this inadequate for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The parameter names (device_path, local_path, device_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond them, leaving device_id's purpose and required format unclear. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Pull a file from the device to the local filesystem' with a specific source and destination. It includes a concrete use case ('save files, logs written by the app') that distinguishes it from siblings like quest_push (which pushes to the device) and quest_files (which lists files).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('e.g. save files, logs written by the app'), implying retrieval of files from the device. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the directionality and example provide sufficient guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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