get_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly says 'Read' and describes the return scope (full body, audience and email settings), clarifying that this is a non-destructive operation. It adds context about the id source, but doesn't discuss error handling or auth, which is acceptable for a straightforward read operation.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core function and scope, the second gives actionable guidance on sourcing the id. No wasted words.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description adequately covers the read operation by explaining what is returned (full content including body and settings) and how to obtain the id. It doesn't cover authentication or error scenarios, but given the simplicity, it's complete enough.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its source via list_posts and create_draft_post. The description repeats this guidance in prose, adding no novel semantic value. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: reading one draft post in full, including body and audience/email settings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_posts (lists drafts) and update_draft (modifies), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly directs the user to obtain the id from list_posts or create_draft_post, indicating the appropriate workflow. It implies this is for fetching full draft details rather than modifying or deleting, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it. This is adequate guidance for a simple read tool.

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