Check the local draft status of a Morning request before retrying. Do not retry executing or needs_check requests until you verify them in Morning first.
Read local draft status. Never retry executing or needs_check requests; check Morning first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by warning against retrying executing/needs_check requests, but never explains what statuses can come back, what "Morning" means here, or why checking it first matters.
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?
Two terse sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The density comes at the cost of legibility — unexplained terms like "Morning" and "needs_check" are packed in without context.
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?
No output schema and no param documentation, so the description must carry the load — yet it never states what status values are returned or what the caller should do with each one. For a status-inspection tool, that is a substantive gap despite the useful retry warning.
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?
One required parameter ("id", uuid) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it — it never says whether the id identifies a draft, a request, or a status lookup. With annotations already covering safety, the burden here is on explaining this identifier, and the description does not.
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?
States a verb and resource ("Read local draft status"), which is better than a tautology, but "local draft status" and "request" are never mapped to the sibling tools (get_document_draft, search_document_drafts, preview_document_draft). An agent cannot tell from the description alone how this differs from the other draft-reading tools.
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?
Provides an explicit when-not directive ("Never retry executing or needs_check requests") and routes to an alternative ("check Morning first", presumably read_morning). The normal when-to-use case is left implicit, and the jargon is unexplained, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.