env_pull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious behaviors: the connection mirrors env_exec, path conventions differ between guest and host, parent directories are auto-created, and credentials are required. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior, but the output schema covers response semantics.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the core operation is first, followed by path semantics, then directory handling and credentials. Every sentence contributes unique information and nothing repeats the schema.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the operation, path conventions, directory recursion, and authentication. The only notable gap is overwrite behavior for existing local files, but the agent still has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying guest vs host path semantics, the Windows forward-slash convention, automatic parent-directory creation, and the role of the recursive flag.

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 precise operation: 'Copy a file or directory out of an environment onto this host.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like env_push (opposite direction) and env_rm (non-destructive copy), and anchors it to env_exec's connection for context.

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?

Provides concrete usage constraints: guest_path always uses forward slashes even on Windows, local_path is on the host, missing parent directories are created, recursive is needed for directories, and the same credentials as env_exec are required. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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