team_pull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says it imports all secrets. It does not disclose whether existing local secrets are overwritten or merged, what permissions or passphrase errors may occur, or what happens on failure, which are critical for a bulk mutation operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and direction without any waste. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one clearly scoped purpose.

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 security-sensitive bulk import with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical context about overwrite behavior, conflict handling, and expected results, leaving the agent unable to fully predict the tool's effects.

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 single passphrase parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains it. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (import) and resource (all secrets) with a clear direction from team vault to local vault. This inherently contrasts with the sibling team_push, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as team_push, team_list, or team_resolve. It only implies usage from the operation itself and provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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