get_draft_kit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: 'The server does not write prose', clarifying the division of labor and implying a read-only assembly step. It says nothing about permissions, what happens if seed_id is unknown, or whether channel must be set up first.

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, return contents front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat placed immediately after. No filler.

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?

Two required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations and no output schema — the description names the return components but leaves both inputs undefined and does not describe result structure or failure modes. For a prerequisite-style tool this leaves real gaps an agent must guess through.

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% and the description never mentions seed_id or channel, so an agent gets no explanation of what a seed is or how the channel enum changes the returned instructions, template, and voice guide. The only parameter meaning available comes from the enum values themselves.

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?

States a specific verb and enumerates the returned payload (channel instructions, template, voice guide, sources), which lets an agent tell this is a context-assembly tool rather than the drafting tool itself. It never names the near-sibling get_draft or explains how the two differ, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 clause 'so the agent can draft' implies the usage point: call this to gather inputs before producing prose. It does not say when not to call it, whether it is a prerequisite for save_draft/get_draft, or what to do if the channel is unconfigured.

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