pull_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if it overwrites existing local files, handles errors (e.g., missing remote file), requires ADB setup, or has performance implications like timeouts. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward operation, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs file operations with potential side effects. It lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens on success/failure, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in context with other ADB-related tools.

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 already documents all parameters (remote_path, local_path, device_id) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses these parameters, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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') and resource ('a file from the Android device'), specifying both source and destination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'screenshot' or 'get_logs' by focusing on file transfer, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar file operations if they existed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context implies it's for file transfer from an Android device, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., device connectivity), exclusions (e.g., not for pulling directories), or comparisons to other tools like 'adb_shell' for more complex operations.

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