pull_specs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by revealing the underlying command wrapper and the 'live' nature of the spec. 'Pull' implies a read-only operation, and 'for local inspection' suggests no side effects, though it falls short of explicitly stating read-only or safety guarantees.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and wastes no words. The second sentence gives a practical wrapper reference without redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what it does, the purpose, and the underlying command. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the return format or error behavior, but the simple nature of the tool keeps it adequately complete.

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 schema already fully describes the 'task' parameter with 100% coverage, meeting the baseline of 3. The description further clarifies how the parameter maps to the `--name <task>` CLI flag, adding meaning beyond 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 clearly states a specific action ('Pull a task's live spec') and the resource ('task's live spec'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on spec retrieval rather than stats, logs, or status, and the wrapped CLI command reinforces the exact function.

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 phrase 'for local inspection' provides clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit 'when not to use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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