adb_pull

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation but does not disclose what happens if the remote path does not exist, whether the local path is overwritten, whether directories are created, or what the command returns on success/failure. For a file-transfer tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The Args section is structured and readable. It earns its place with no filler, though the device explanation could be slightly more concise.

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?

The tool is a simple file-pull operation with 3 parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it lacks behavioral details like overwrite behavior, error handling, and return value semantics, which an agent would need to handle failures gracefully. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it, leaving the agent to infer what the tool returns.

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 add meaning for remote_path and local_path with an example path, and explains the device parameter's auto-select behavior. However, it does not clarify path format nuances (e.g., whether local_path can be a directory, whether remote_path must be absolute) beyond the example. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Pull') and resource ('file from the Android device to the local machine'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling adb_push. The direction of transfer is explicit, so an agent can tell this tool from adb_push without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for the device parameter (auto-selects when only one device is connected), which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_push or paserver_get, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as device connection or adb availability. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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