typora_read_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the primary read action and the optional restore (write) behavior, but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether restoring overwrites the target path, whether the draft is deleted after reading, or any permission requirements). It also does not describe the return format. The description is accurate but not deeply transparent about edge cases or consequences of the restore option.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core action ('Read the full text content') and then introduces the optional restore feature. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves some gaps. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (though 'full text content' implies the content itself), and it omits details about error handling, overwrite behavior for restore_to_path, or whether the draft is consumed during reading. For an agent to call this correctly, it would benefit from knowing the exact return structure and any file-write side effects.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about the 'draftsRecover vault' for the filename, but this is more about the tool's purpose than the parameter semantics themselves. The restore_to_path parameter is already well-described in the schema, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that.

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 verb 'Read', the target resource 'auto-saved draft from Typora's draftsRecover vault', and the optional restore action. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like typora_list_drafts (which lists drafts) and typora_open (which opens in the app). It conveys exactly what the tool does in one sentence.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies you would use this after obtaining a draft filename from typora_list_drafts, but does not name that sibling or provide explicit 'when/when-not' guidance. The schema hints at this via the filename description, but the tool description itself lacks direct usage direction.

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