airstrings_pull

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed (unpushed local edits in the target CSVs) and clarifying that the operation is read-only on the server despite the destructive local effect. It also discloses the return payload (string, section, file counts), which the annotations do not.

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?

Front-loads the destructive warning before the routing guidance, and every sentence carries distinct load: mutation semantics, safety caveat, alternative tool, and return values. No filler.

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 single-parameter, destructive local-write tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the alternative tools, and the return value shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100% and the single 'section' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Only overwrite this section's CSV. Omit to pull every section.'). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (download the active environment's strings into the local workspace) and defines scope precisely (overwriting local CSVs with the server state). It is immediately distinguishable from airstrings_push (upload) and airstrings_strings_ls (inspect without touching).

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?

Explicitly names two alternatives and the conditions that select them: run airstrings_push first to preserve local edits, and use airstrings_strings_ls to inspect without modifying. Also frames the primary use case ('start from the server's state').

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