AI Short draft status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'org-scoped' and 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free' along with the conditional render-attachment metadata, providing useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Every sentence contributes: the action, the return fields, and the scope/capability. It is front-loaded with the verb and remains concise while thoroughly describing the return payload.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description enumerates all expected return fields and the conditional MP4 metadata, making behavior predictable. No important gaps for a status-read operation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description of draftId. The tool description mentions 'by draftId' but adds no new format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'Read the status of one generated AI Short draft by draftId' – a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the return contents (EngineDraft status, postId, platforms, script, ShortSpec, render attachment metadata), distinguishing it from generation tools like shorts_generate.

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 makes it clear the tool is for reading status of a generated draft, and the schema confirms the draftId comes from shorts_generate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no other sibling tool serves this exact purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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