Pull Micro source

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior context: it fetches a snapshot, writes to a local directory, and records a base revision. It clarifies the non-read-only nature without contradicting the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with the main action front-loaded. Every word adds meaning: 'Fetch', 'project source snapshot', 'record base revision', and 'new or empty local directory' are all relevant and there is no padding.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the key precondition (empty/new directory). However, it lacks parameter mapping and usage guidance relative to siblings, so an agent may still have to inspect the schema carefully. It is minimally complete but not fully.

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 only 33%, with only 'path' described. The description mentions 'local directory' and 'project source snapshot' but never maps these to the slug, path, or directory parameters. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents to guess which parameter means what.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('project source snapshot'), and adds a distinctive outcome ('record its base revision in a new or empty local directory'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any of the many sibling 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?

The phrase 'new or empty local directory' implies the precondition for when the tool can be used, and the purpose implies a source-fetching context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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