draft_signal_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the use of ALSA data and the definition of 'open' colors. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover data freshness or rate 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential context. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description falls short by not explaining the output format or providing example signals. It hints at 'recommend a direction' but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.

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 description does not need to compensate significantly. The schema already describes all parameters adequately. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 analyzes draft picks and recommends a direction based on color signals using ALSA data. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'draft picks' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like draft_pack_pick, though the mention of ALSA and 'cards seen later than expected' provides some distinction.

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 implies the tool is used when you have draft picks and want color signal analysis, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many draft-related sibling tools.

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