sanity_draft_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both draft and published versions are shown if they exist, which is key behavioral information. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or any other side effects.

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, concise sentence of 13 words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and behavior. It distinguishes between draft and published versions, which is important. It could mention the return format, but overall it is complete enough.

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 for the single parameter 'id' is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the parameter format, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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The description clearly states the action ('Check if a document has unpublished changes') and the resource ('draft and published versions'). It effectively differentiates from siblings like sanity_diff, sanity_get_document, and sanity_publish/unpublish by focusing specifically on the draft status check.

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 for checking unpublished changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 17 sibling tools, more explicit guidance would improve clarity, but the context is sufficient for basic understanding.

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