Pull Strategy Updates

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial context beyond that: it refuses when local has uncommitted changes, warns that force overwrites and 'LOSES local edits', and explicitly frames this as preventing silent work loss. This is valuable behavioral detail that the annotations do not convey.

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 dense and every sentence carries information: purpose, refusal behavior, when to use, and what not to use. Though slightly long, it is well-organized and front-loads the core action. No filler or repetition; it earns its length.

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 description covers the primary use case, the safety guardrail, the force escape hatch, and explicitly routes to sibling tools for other operations. For a pull/sync operation with only two optional parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to describe returns.

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 100%, so both parameters (force and strategy_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of force=True reinforces the loss warning, but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Re-fetch the server HEAD into the local working copy' and explicitly names the git pull analogy. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating what it is not: 'Do NOT use to send local edits UP — call keel_strategy_push. Do NOT use to inspect what changed — call keel_strategy_log.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from related tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Use it when someone else — a teammate, the web editor, a fork, a restore — may have moved the strategy while you were working locally' and advises a preceding status check. It also gives negative guidance (when not to use) and alternatives (push, log), making the decision process clear for the agent.

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