Retrieve a file from an Android device to a local path. Use it to copy device files, such as /sdcard/Download/test.txt, to your computer for inspection or backup.
从 Android 设备拉取文件到本地。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local_path | Yes | 保存到本地的路径，例如 /tmp/test.txt。 | |
| device_path | Yes | 设备上的文件路径，例如 /sdcard/Download/test.txt。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether an existing local file is overwritten, what happens on a missing device path, whether large files stream or buffer, or what error surface the caller should expect — all material for a file-transfer mutation that also writes to the local filesystem.
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?
One short sentence with zero filler; the source-to-destination direction is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a transfer operation, but the dimension rewards absence of waste rather than depth.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented. What remains missing is behavioral context around failure modes and overwrite semantics, leaving the definition just barely sufficient for a simple two-parameter transfer tool.
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 coverage is 100% and both required parameters carry their own descriptive text with concrete examples (/tmp/test.txt, /sdcard/Download/test.txt), so the description adds nothing beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('拉取文件' — pull a file) plus the direction of transfer (from Android device to local), which inherently distinguishes it from the sibling push_file. It stops short of the 5-level by never naming that sibling as the contrasting operation, forcing the agent to infer the pairing.
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?
There is no indication of when to prefer this tool over push_file or any other transfer path, nor any prerequisites (device connected, ADB permissions, path must exist). The direction of transfer is the only usage signal, and it is implicit in the verb rather than framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.