Read Strategy Draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'private' scope and that the response includes 'exact file hashes,' but does not disclose more about permissions, errors, or availability.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'Read,' 'private draft,' and 'exact file hashes' all add value.

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?

With one required parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description gives enough context for basic invocation. It conveys the private scope and the hash-related return detail; mentioning potential access restrictions would improve completeness but is not essential.

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 explain draft_id beyond the schema's bare title. Although draft_id is a simple and arguably self-explanatory parameter, the low schema coverage means the description should compensate more than it does.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'private draft,' and adds 'with exact file hashes' to specify the output detail. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_strategy, but the private-draft scope provides reasonable clarity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_strategy, search_strategy_catalog, or get_catalog_snapshot. The only implied usage is reading a private draft, with no exclusions or context.

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