cm_get_client_drafts

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

Read-only nature is already declared by annotation 'readOnlyHint: true'. Description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., potential emptiness, ordering). Adequate but not enhanced beyond 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?

Single sentence, four words: very concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but lacks structural elements like bullet points. Efficient for the information delivered.

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 low complexity (1 param, read-only, no output schema), the description is sufficient to understand the tool's core function. Some might desire mention of return format, but not strictly necessary for this simple read operation.

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 has 100% coverage: clientId is described as 'Client ID (a hex string identifying the client).' Description does not add any further meaning to the parameter. Baseline score applies since schema already documents it.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a client's draft campaigns.', specifying the verb 'Get', resource 'draft campaigns', and scope 'of a client'. This distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve other campaign states (e.g., sent, scheduled) or client-level info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cm_get_client_scheduled_campaigns or cm_get_client_sent_campaigns. Implicit from the name but lacks explicit context or conditions.

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