draft_signal_read

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it uses ALSA data, detects open colors, and explains the meaning of 'cards seen later than expected'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the main purpose, the second explains the methodology. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description is complete for this read-only analytical tool: it explains core functionality, methodology, and key concepts. While output format could be hinted, it is not critical given the tool's simple return of a direction recommendation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is adequate given high coverage.

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 tool analyzes draft picks and recommends a direction based on color signals using ALSA data. It defines the key concept of 'open' colors, distinguishing it from sibling tools like draft_pack_pick (which picks cards) and sealed_pool_build (which builds pools).

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 signal detection during a draft but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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