pull_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the basic operation (copy from device by adb pull) but does not disclose important behavioral traits: whether the local path is overwritten without warning, what happens if the device is disconnected or the file does not exist, or any required permissions. The description is too minimal to ensure safe agent behavior.

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 plus an example, perfectly front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 simple file copy tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use cases. It could mention return values or error behavior, but the examples help ground the agent. It is not missing critical information, though a bit more detail on behavior would improve completeness.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds only brief examples (e.g., 'retrieve a generated file, database, or screenshot') which provide some context but do not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a file off the device to a local path' and identifies the underlying adb command 'adb pull'. The examples (generated file, database, screenshot) further clarify the type of resources. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like push_file (opposite direction) and screenshot (captures a screen image but not arbitrary 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 implies usage through examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like push_file. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected) or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a simple tool but not fully explicit.

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