ps_research_draft

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 meaningful work: it discloses the payload structure, the enumeration of origin values (render | user_edit | merge), and the per-section flags (locked, stale) plus evidence linkage. It stops short of error behavior when a revision is missing or any auth/session requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive for an annotation-free tool.

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 compact statements, front-loaded with the payload description and ending with the revision default. No filler, and each clause (origin values, section state, evidence ids) adds distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly required, yet the description covers them well while leaving the non-revision parameters (config_path, periscope_path) unexplained in an environment with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. Adequate for calling the tool with a session id, incomplete for the full parameter surface.

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 coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only `revision` ('omit for the latest'); session_id, config_path, and periscope_path get no meaning at all, leaving three of four parameters documented nowhere.

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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource (the research document as a versioned draft) and enumerates what the read yields: revision, origin, and per-section lock/staleness/evidence state. That is well beyond a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like ps_research_list or ps_research_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only usage cue is 'Omit `revision` for the latest,' which is a parameter default hint rather than selection guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over ps_research_list or ps_research_status, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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