Pipepost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a draft, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential behaviors like error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), response format, or whether it's idempotent. The 'FREE' annotation adds some context about cost, but more operational details would be helpful.

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 (5 words) and front-loaded, with every word earning its place: 'Retrieve' specifies the action, 'a saved draft' the resource, 'by ID' the mechanism, and 'FREE' adds useful context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about the return value (what a 'draft' contains), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader workflow with sibling tools like 'save_draft' and 'list_drafts'. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Draft ID to retrieve'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only repeats 'by ID' without providing additional context like ID format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a saved draft by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_drafts' (which lists multiple drafts) and 'save_draft' (which creates/updates drafts). The phrase 'by ID' specifies the exact retrieval mechanism.

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 context by specifying 'by ID' and mentioning it's 'FREE', suggesting it's a basic retrieval operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_drafts' for browsing drafts or 'save_draft' for creating/updating, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid draft ID.

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