get_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the full returned state (publish results if published, rejection info if rejected), the 404 scenario for workspace mismatch or soft-deletion, and the caveat that deleted drafts can be fetched via list. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'get' statement.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and then adds useful details in a logical order (return contents, usage guidance, error behavior). Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary function, return value composition, error conditions, and the edge case of deleted drafts. It fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 documents the sole parameter draftId as 'The draft id (UUID).' with 100% coverage. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline when schema coverage is high. No additional parameter-level detail is needed.

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 action: 'Fetch a single draft by id.' It also enumerates the returned content (mediaItems, platformOverrides, publish results, rejection info), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drafts (listing) and get_draft_audit (audit). The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user references a specific draft and you need its full state.' It also mentions the 404 condition and provides guidance for fetching deleted drafts via list_drafts with status:['deleted']. This gives clear when-to-use context and implicitly distinguishes from listing tools.

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