check_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond them: it is deterministic with no model call (predictable, no LLM cost), it 'Reports only; never edits', and it supports both Korean and English. These are non-obvious behavioral facts worth stating.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a tight enumeration and two short constraint sentences. Slightly dense in the middle list, but every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description must convey the nature of the result, and it does: it reports findings and never edits, and it names the categories it detects. It could say more about the report's shape, but for a single-parameter read-only lint the coverage is adequate.

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 there is a single required 'text' parameter, so the description must carry the semantics. It characterizes the input as a 'creative draft', which clarifies content type, but says nothing about length, format, or constraints. Baseline 3 for compensating only partially on one obvious parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (lint/check) and resource (creative draft) and enumerates exactly what it flags: quality/benefit words, buzzword filler, template phrasing, aesthetic tropes, and impersonation of a named person. No sibling tool does linting, so it is clearly differentiated from the retrieval-oriented siblings (get_framework, search, trace, etc.).

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 phrase 'no model call' implies when to prefer this over a model-based review (cheap, deterministic pass), which is implicit usage guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative or workflow context, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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