read_native_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that only plaintext drafts are supported and encoded drafts return unsupported, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe what the returned content looks like or how unsupported is signaled.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The core action and the key limitation (plaintext only) are front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though it could have added path details without much extra length.

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 a simple one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. The gap is the 'unsupported' behavior for encoded drafts: it does not state whether the tool errors, returns empty, or returns a structured notice, which an agent might need to handle the response correctly. No output schema increases the burden.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter. It does state the resource is a 'directory/file', giving some hint about path semantics, but it does not specify whether the path should be absolute, relative, or point to a directory vs file. This is partial compensation but not complete.

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 action ('Inspect') and the resource ('plaintext native draft directory/file'), and explicitly notes it does not change anything. It is distinguishable from siblings that write or apply changes, though it does not name any specific sibling alternative.

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 gives context that it is for inspection without modification, implying it should be used over editing tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. The 'without changing it' clause helps but is not a full usage guideline.

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