analyze_reference_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by stating encrypted drafts are explicitly rejected and that it won't guess content, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, though 'extract' implies non-destructive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and adds a concise behavioral note about encryption. There is no wasteful content.

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 tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and an edge case (encryption), but lacks parameter semantics and does not clarify how the output blueprint is structured or used. The output schema exists, so not all return details are needed, but the missing parameter guidance leaves a notable gap.

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 compensate. It does not explain the parameters beyond the action, especially include_text, which is boolean with a default but no meaning. The description adds no value for understanding what inputs are needed or how they affect output.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'read a plaintext reference draft and extract an editing blueprint.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_from_reference by focusing on analysis rather than construction, and from build_draft/batch_from_template by targeting reference drafts.

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 plaintext drafts and explicitly rejects encrypted drafts, but does not provide explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The context from sibling tools suggests a workflow, but the description alone doesn't explain when to choose this over other tools.

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