Get 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, yet it says nothing about it being a read-only lookup, permission requirements, or what happens when the ID does not exist. An agent can infer "read" from the verb, but nothing about failure modes or access constraints is disclosed.

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 short sentence with the key qualifier ("by its ID") front-loaded and no filler. There is nothing to trim, though also little substance.

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 parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema that documents return values, so most needs are covered structurally. The missing piece is any note on behavior for an unknown draft ID or on how this fits alongside list_drafts.

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 100% — draft_id is typed as an integer and documented — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that the ID identifies a "specific draft," offering no format or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get a specific draft") and adds the retrieval key ("by its ID"), which implicitly distinguishes it from the list_drafts sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_drafts or the various draft-mutation siblings (put_draft, prepublish_draft, publish_draft). The only hint is "by its ID," implying the caller already has an identifier, which is implied usage at best.

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