get_form_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Persistent' hints the draft survives beyond a session, but nothing is said about auth requirements, behavior when the draft_id does not exist, or whether unpublished changes are included in 'current version'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is the same trait that leaves the usage and parameter gaps unfilled.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should say more about identity/format of draft_id and failure behavior when a draft is missing.

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% for the single required parameter, so draft_id is completely undocumented in structured data. The description never mentions the parameter, its expected format, or where to obtain a valid ID, leaving the gap unaddressed.

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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('form draft') and a scope qualifier ('current version'), which signals a read of the latest state rather than a mutation. It implicitly contrasts with mutating siblings like patch_form_draft or publish_form_draft, but never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. An agent must guess whether to call this versus preview_google_form or patch_form_draft, and 'current version' hints at a read-before-edit pattern without ever saying so.

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