cv_draft_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get the current state,' which implies a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or access controls. The description is adequate but not thorough for a no-annotation context.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action 'Get'. It contains no superfluous information and efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential: what the tool returns (fields of a draft). It does not address error states or relationships with siblings, but these are less critical given the output schema and straightforward nature.

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 does not elaborate on the required parameter 'draft_id'. It only lists the fields in the returned data. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's minimal 'Draft Id' title.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource 'CV draft' with the fields returned (id, content, status, timestamps). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cv_draft_create (creation) and cv_draft_list (listing).

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 usage when a specific draft's current state is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. Without context on alternatives like cv_draft_get vs cv_draft_list, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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