check_draft

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

Annotations declare only openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true; there is no readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest. It implies a non-mutating analysis by saying it 'tells' the user what to fix, and enumerates the analysis dimensions, but says nothing about permissions, whether the draft is stored, or performance. Useful but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action (compare draft to my writing) before the long parenthetical checklist of dimensions. Efficient and well-ordered, though the parenthetical enumeration is dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the schema fully documents the four parameters. The description explains what the analysis covers, making it complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly; only sibling routing is missing.

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% and all four parameters are documented in the schema (kind, text, style, title). The description only obliquely touches parameters via '그 종류에 빠진 것' (what's missing for that kind), which loosely relates to the kind parameter but adds no new syntax or constraints. Baseline 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 gives a specific verb (알려 준다, 'reports') and resource (a written draft compared against the user's own writing), and even enumerates the dimensions checked (tone, length, line breaks, punctuation, AI-ness, missing elements for the kind, duplicate old sentences). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_my_style, though that contrast is not spelled out explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied – you run it on a draft to get revision guidance – but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing against the closely related analyze_my_style or get_my_style_guide. An agent can infer the context but gets no exclusions or alternatives.

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