kaggle_pull_kernel

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world, which aligns with the description's mention of writing to a local directory and handling untrusted code. The description adds important behavioral details ('untrusted-wrapped and truncated') and the side-effect of local file creation, going beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a critical caveat about untrusted code and the parameter format. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, and a behavioral caveat. It could clarify what 'local work dir' means, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the kernel parameter format explicitly ('owner/slug') and implies the 'with_metadata' parameter by mentioning 'optionally metadata'. While not exhaustive, it adds significant meaning.

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 action ('Pull a kernel's source') with a specific resource and destination ('into a local work dir'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like push_kernel (opposite direction) and kernel_output (retrieves output, not source).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve kernel source) and gives the required format for the kernel parameter ('owner/slug'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the sibling list allows inference.

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