clasp_pull

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

No annotations are provided, and the description simply restates the tool's name with little additional context. It does not disclose whether local files are overwritten, if authentication is required, or what happens with conflicting changes—important behavioral traits for a pull operation.

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 with no fluff, but it is almost a tautology of the tool name. It lacks the added context that would make it valuable—every sentence should earn its place, and this one barely does.

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 that this is a pull operation that could overwrite local changes and there are no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, or edge cases, even with a simple schema and no output schema.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (rootDir and versionNumber), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('changes from Google Apps Script'), clearly conveying the core action. It distinguishes from siblings like push (opposite direction) and clone (initial setup), though it could be more explicit about pulling remote changes to the local project.

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 no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clasp_clone for initial setup, clasp_push for local-to-remote). No prerequisites, timing, or exclusions are mentioned.

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