get_draft_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists returned data and does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The absence of such details is a gap for a tool with optional parameters.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description lacks clarity on input configuration—specifically, how draft_id and league_id relate and what happens when no parameters are provided. Given three optional parameters, this is a notable omission for a tool designed to fetch draft state.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only mentions an 'optional roster' (mapping to roster_id), but fails to explain the roles of draft_id and league_id or how they relate. This leaves the selection of draft context ambiguous and provides little value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as draft state, enumerating specific components (settings, picks, next-pick context, roster's local queue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_roster_state and get_season_context, which target different aspects.

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 implies usage for retrieving draft-related information, providing clear context of what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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