tokenpull

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces that it's read-only and adds useful behavioral details: the numbers stay local unless submitted, and some platforms may have partial data or estimated values. No contradiction with 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 dense with information in two sentences but could be slightly more structured for easier scanning. It front-loads the core action and then adds caveats.

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 a single parameter with full schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description covers key behaviors. It might be missing details about output format, but that is likely handled by the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with enums fully described. The description adds extra context for specific platforms (e.g., devin reads from SQLite, codex estimated, other needs SIGRANK_OTHER_PATH), which adds meaning beyond the enum values.

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 specific verbs ('Pull', 'rank') and clearly identifies the resource ('your LOCAL token usage from the platform's session logs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tokenpull_compare and tokenpull_submit by focusing on pulling and ranking local data.

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 explains the tool's context (reading local usage counts, not message content) and mentions caveats like partial data and estimation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or when to prefer siblings like tokenpull_compare or tokenpull_submit.

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