get_draft

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

The description repeats the annotation's readOnlyHint as 'Read-only', which is redundant. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, rate limiting, or side effects) are disclosed. The annotation already covers safety, so the description adds no extra value.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. No unnecessary words, and it front-loads the core purpose. Perfectly sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, read-only, with output schema), the description adequately covers the basics. It could mention that the draft_id must exist, but the output schema likely provides return field details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (draft_id), and the tool description does not provide any additional meaning, constraints, format, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Show', the resource 'draft', and the identification method 'by id'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drafts (list all) and approve_draft (modify).

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 when you have a specific draft id, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_drafts, approve_draft, or reject_draft, nor does it mention any prerequisites or prohibitions.

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