pull_file

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the base64 return format and the requirement for 'modify_fs' feature. However, it does not disclose details like behavior on missing files, permission errors, or if file size limits apply, which would enhance transparency beyond annotations.

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 that conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and a simple value retrieval operation, the description sufficiently covers the most critical aspects. Minor gaps exist (e.g., behavior on errors), but overall it provides a complete picture for a straightforward tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter (remotePath) described as 'Absolute path of the file to read'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file from the filesystem of the machine running the driver'), clearly indicating the action and scope. It includes the return format ('base64') and distinguishes from siblings by noting it's for reading, not pushing or deleting 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 states the requirement for 'modify_fs' insecure feature, which provides context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use pull_file vs other file tools like push_file or delete_file, nor does it mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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