pull_file

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 states the required parameters and their roles, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the local file will be overwritten, whether the remote path must exist, error conditions, or permission requirements. For a file transfer operation, this is a notable gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the parameters. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter file transfer tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks behavioral details like overwrite behavior, error handling, and return value. It is adequate but not complete for an agent that needs to handle failures or side effects.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'remote' is the path on the device and 'local' is the path on the local machine, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names. However, it does not specify path formats, whether directories are supported, or any constraints on the paths.

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 ('Pulls a file'), the source ('from the connected Android device'), and the destination ('to the local machine'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling push_file by direction, and the verb 'pull' is specific to this operation.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to transfer a file from the device to the local machine. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like push_file for the reverse direction, but the direction is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct usage.

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