spider_pull_corpus

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

The description discloses key behaviors: verified priority, filtering by tag/klass, and graceful fallback to internal corpus. However, with no annotations, it omits details like authentication, rate limits, or response format, which are important 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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide additional details. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on return format, pagination, or the nature of the remote corpus, leaving some gaps for a fully autonomous agent.

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 50% (tags and verified have descriptions, klass and limit do not). The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 tool's verb 'pull' and resource 'shared corpus', and specifies filtering by tag/klass and verified priority, distinguishing it from siblings like spider_record_pattern which presumably records patterns.

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?

It specifies a concrete use case: 'for checking known traps at round start'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about broader applicability.

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