get_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It declares 'Read-only', which is helpful, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., if draft not found) or authentication requirements.

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 very short (two sentences) with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It lacks parameter semantics and does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_drafts. The output schema may compensate for return values, but the description is incomplete.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description does not add any meaning to the draft_id parameter beyond its name. It fails to explain what a draft ID is or its format.

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 'Show one draft by id', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_drafts (list) and reject_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 only says 'Read-only', implying safe use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_drafts. No when-not-to-use information is provided.

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