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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: a 100 KB response cap, text files returned with contents, binary files returned as listings only, unreturned files explicitly listed as left out, and starter-layout drafts returning business details. This is unusually transparent about response shape and limits.

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 front-loaded with the core return behavior and contains no filler. It is dense, especially the first long sentence enumerating file types and contents, but every clause conveys functional information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: file contents versus listings, size limit, left-out files, paths filtering, starter-layout business details, and default latest version. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents site_id, version_id, and paths. The description reinforces that version_id defaults to latest and that paths restricts the response, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 and resource — 'Returns the files of a private draft version' — and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools such as get_website or get_preview_link by focusing on draft file contents. It also clarifies that the result includes text file contents but only lists images, fonts, and other binaries.

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?

Usage is implied by the draft-file scope and by 'paths limits the response to the named files,' but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over get_website or get_preview_link. There are no stated exclusions or alternative-tool routing, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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