Get retweet draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It simply says 'Fetch', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any permissions, errors, or return behavior. For a tool with no annotations, more explicit disclosure is expected.

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 that immediately states the action and target. There is no fluff, and all words contribute to the meaning.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description is mostly complete. It tells you what it does and the key scoping (retweet/undo draft). With no output schema, it doesn't describe the return value, but for a fetch operation the return is implied. Minor gap around clarifying what an 'undo draft' is, but acceptable.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with description 'Retweet draft id.' The description's 'by id' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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: fetching a single retweet/undo draft by id. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('retweet/undo draft'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_draft' or 'get_dm_draft' by specifying the retweet/undo context.

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 usage is implied: use this when you have a specific retweet/undo draft id and need its details. However, there is no explicit contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'get_draft' for regular drafts) or mention of when not to use it. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself gives no direct guidance.

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