Get draft solutions

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by revealing what the returned data contains: the main test solution, alternatives, and their expected verdicts, which helps the agent anticipate the result without contradicting annotations.

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 that immediately states the action and resource, then adds the meaningful distinction about main versus alternative solutions. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only fetch tool with one documented parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: what the solutions are, what they contain, and the expected verdicts. No critical operational detail appears 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?

The only parameter, session_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'Build session id' with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, but it does connect the session concept to the draft context, matching the schema baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('solutions attached to a draft'), and distinguishes the content from related tooling by specifying 'the main test solution plus any alternatives with their expected verdicts.' This makes the tool's role clear without needing to inspect the schema or siblings.

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 clearly situates the tool within the draft-building workflow by stating it reads solutions attached to a draft. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other operations, so it stops short of full when-to-use-versus-not guidance.

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