Copy a file from an Android phone to this computer, specifying the remote file and optional local destination, defaulting to the gwagent downloads directory.
Copy a file from the phone to this computer (default: the gwagent downloads dir).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local_path | No | Destination on this computer. | |
| remote_path | Yes | File on the phone, e.g. /sdcard/Download/report.pdf. |
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 full behavioral burden. It says 'Copy' rather than move, which usefully implies the source remains, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior for local_path, permission needs, or what happens if the destination directory is missing.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It puts the core action and direction first and appends the useful default destination.
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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the source, destination, and default destination adequately. It could be more complete on overwrite and error behavior, but the remaining gaps are modest for this complexity.
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 baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful information beyond the schema by specifying the default local destination when local_path is omitted, which is not stated in the schema.
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 (copy a file) and makes the direction explicit: from the phone to this computer. This distinguishes it from the sibling device_push by direction, though it does not name that sibling.
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?
Usage is implied by the transfer direction and the default download directory, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose device_pull versus device_push or other device file tools. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the remote file must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.