pull

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must compensate. It explains the tool's behavior well: it restores from server to local (like git pull), handles conflicts (skips if local newer, shows conflict otherwise), and works across devices. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or if authentication is required, though the comparison to git pull and conflict handling imply safety mechanisms.

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 well-structured: opening with purpose, then sibling differentiation, conflict handling, and usage examples. Each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is efficient and clear.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers core functionality, conflict handling, and parameter usage. It explains what happens with different invocations (whole server vs selection). It does not detail return values, but output schema presumably covers that. The description is fairly complete for understanding the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'id' parameter with examples ('pull(id='lr-x'|'dc-x')'), showing it's optional and can select specific items. The 'help' parameter is not explained, but its meaning is conventional. The description adds significant value beyond the schema's bare types.

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's action ('restore the home base from my server') and compares it to 'git pull', which is a familiar concept. It also distinguishes from sibling tools 'import' and 'local', providing specific when-to-use guidance. The verb 'restore' and resource 'home base from server' are precise.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To bring things from an openbox use import — pull is for my server only' and 'moving items between local workspaces is local(), not pull()'. It also explains behavior in conflict scenarios ('If local is newer/same it's skipped') and provides usage examples for different arguments.

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