check_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states there are no side effects ('without submitting and without changing anything'), describes the exact return fields, and clarifies the response reflects the publish gate's own answer. It doesn't cover permissions or error behavior, but the core behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 dense sentences each serve a distinct purpose: purpose/safety, return shape, and invocation timing. Key information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

Covers purpose, non-mutation, return values, and when to invoke, while an output schema handles detailed field definitions. The only meaningful gap is parameter value semantics, which prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never defines item_type or item_id or their allowed values. The phrase 'this draft' hints at the target, but an agent still has to infer parameter meaning from elsewhere.

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?

States a specific verb 'Dry-run submit' with a clear resource ('this draft') and explicitly contrasts with submit_for_review by noting no submission and no changes. An agent can immediately distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool before submit_for_review and after every fix, and positions it as the authority. It does not spell out when not to use it, so it falls just short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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