type_archive.pull

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to indicate whether 'pull' is read-only, destructive, requires specific permissions, or produces side effects. The agent cannot infer if the tool modifies the archive or simply returns data, making it risky to invoke.

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 sentence, which is concise but at the expense of essential information. It is not front-loaded with key behavioral details, and the brevity leaves the agent underinformed. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one does not convey enough meaning.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any constraints. The agent has virtually no contextual understanding to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter explanations are present in the schema. The description does not mention any of the three parameters (names, session_id, type_archive_id) or their semantics. The agent has no idea what 'names' refers to or how to provide valid values.

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 'Pull types from a type archive' identifies the action (pull) and resource (type archive), but 'pull' is vague and does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'type_archive.get' which likely performs a similar retrieval. The verb lacks specificity, and the description does not clarify what 'pull' entails (e.g., extract, download, load).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'type_archive.get', 'type_archive.push', or 'type_archive.references'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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