Get Draft

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context beyond this, such as the examples of draft keys, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, auth needs, or what happens if the draft is missing. No contradiction 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes helpful examples. Every part earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values (e.g., draft content or error handling), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (draft_key and sequence). The description adds value by providing common key examples (e.g., 'new_topic', 'topic_<id>'), which helps interpret the draft_key parameter, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'a specific draft by its key', with examples of common keys like 'new_topic' and 'topic_<id>'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'discourse_list_drafts' (which lists drafts) by focusing on fetching a single draft via a key.

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 provides clear context by mentioning common key examples (e.g., 'new_topic' for new topic drafts, 'topic_<id>' for reply drafts), which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as 'discourse_list_drafts' for listing all drafts.

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