git_pull

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two behaviors that matter most for a pull: it is fast-forward only and it will not create a merge commit or discard work. It stops short of saying what happens when the branch has diverged (does it fail or abort?) and whether network credentials are needed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical constraint in parentheses. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so the description mainly needs to cover behavior and the one input. Behavior is handled well, but the total omission of the 'pasta' parameter leaves a real gap for a tool whose only required argument is undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter, 'pasta', is never mentioned in the description at all. The agent must infer that it is the repository folder path, and nothing is said about whether it accepts absolute/relative paths or what happens with an invalid folder.

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 and resource: updates the current branch. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the git_merge sibling by declaring 'nunca cria merge', so an agent can tell what it does and does not do without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the tool to reach for when the current branch needs refreshing from upstream, and the 'no merge' clause hints that git_merge is the alternative when integration is wanted. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing and no mention of prerequisites such as a configured remote.

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