tokenpull

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses read-only behavior (token-only, not message content), data locality, and caveats about partial data (estimated=true, dataGap note). This is comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, all essential: purpose, safety guarantee, and data quality warnings. Front-loaded with key action verbs ('Pull', 'read', 'stay'). No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, privacy, and data limitations well. However, lacks information about the output format or structure, which could help an agent understand what to expect when no output schema is provided.

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% and already describes the platform enum with a note. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool pulls local token usage from session logs and ranks across windows. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_paste or get_leaderboard by emphasizing local, read-only nature.

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 usage for local token statistics but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The 'numbers stay on your machine' hints at privacy context, but no direct alternatives or exclusions.

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