Read a draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the body returns as markdown by default, is editable, and can be round-tripped to update_draft. It also explains that prosemirror gives the raw document. 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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the default body format and its editability, and the third covers the prosemirror alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity read tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, default body format, and practical workflow. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the returned draft structure could help, but 'in full' plus the body-format discussion is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that markdown is the default, editable format and that prosemirror is the raw document, tying body_format directly to the edit workflow with update_draft. It does not enrich id or publication beyond the schema, but the schema already documents those adequately.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one draft in full.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_drafts (list vs single read) and get_post (draft vs published post). The body-format note reinforces the primary purpose without confusing it with other tools.

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 gives clear context by framing this as the read step in an edit workflow: 'so you can edit a sentence and send it straight back to update_draft.' It implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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