keel_strategy_pull

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. Description adds important behavioral details: refuses on uncommitted changes, force overwrites local edits, and warns of data loss. 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value without fluff. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 essential behavior, usage context, failure modes, and references sibling tools. Output schema handles return values. Minor lack of detail on edge cases (e.g., no changes), but sufficient for typical use.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, so baseline score of 3.

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 re-fetches server HEAD into local working copy, using the git pull analogy. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning refusal on diverged state and references to related tools like keel_strategy_push and keel_strategy_status.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (suspect someone updated strategy), what to check first (keel_strategy_status), and alternatives (push first or use force). Provides clear context for decision-making.

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