get_branch_draft

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that each branch has at most one open draft and that the tool returns the latest draft revision and edit history. This is transparent for a read operation, though it could explicitly state it is read-only.

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?

Two sentences pack all necessary information without waste. The first sentence defines the tool; the second provides context and a usage tip. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what, the input hints, and a key constraint (max one draft). It could mention the output structure more, but the mention of 'edit history' suffices.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: for branch_id, it explains where to get the value (from list_branches), that omitting it gives the live branch, and behavior with multiple branches. This is exemplary.

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The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'a branch's pending (unpublished) draft', and specifies what is included ('latest draft revision and edit history'). It also distinguishes from siblings like list_branches and other branch operations.

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 tells when to use this tool and points to list_branches as an alternative to check for drafts. It could be improved by stating when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and contextually helpful.

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