show_draft

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real side effect — that it opens a web page containing the full track lists — and that it is a display operation, but it never states read-only semantics, whether it mutates or persists anything, or what happens if the draft ID is invalid or stale.

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?

Purpose comes first, followed by a compact contents summary and an Args block — a sensible front-loaded structure. The card-content enumeration is slightly long but each element tells the agent what to expect back, so it mostly earns its place.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description adequately conveys both the input convention and the returned content. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about failure modes or side effects beyond opening a page, which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description fully compensates: it gives the ID format ("d3"), the default behavior (latest draft), and where to discover other valid IDs. That is exactly the meaning an agent needs to supply the argument correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Show a draft of new playlists") and enumerates what the output contains — group cards, unmatched tracks, progress bar. It is clearly about drafts rather than existing playlists, which separates it from show_playlist/show_overview, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it explains that the draft arg defaults to the latest one and that other drafts are listed in accompanying text, which hints at the post-grouping review workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of edit_draft, show_playlist or group_tracks.

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