tool_read_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload keys and the path-resolution rule, which is real added context, but it never states that this is a side-effect-free read, how missing files are reported (only implied by the 'ok' key), or any auth/folder constraints.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence followed by tightly scoped Args/Returns blocks; every line carries information. The field list is long but each entry is a distinct return key, so it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return dict keys, and it covers the only parameter's semantics. Only minor gaps remain (error/failure behavior, whether reads are cached or permission-gated) for a simple single-file read tool.

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 coverage is 0% (the single parameter has no description), so the description must compensate. It does: file_path is documented as either an absolute path or a bare filename resolved against the drafts folder, which is non-obvious resolution behavior the schema does not convey.

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+resource ('read a draft markdown file') and adds scope ('return its content + parsed metadata'), which cleanly separates it from list_drafts, delete_draft, and write_blog. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 by the resource (read one draft) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is named (e.g. list_drafts for enumeration, write_blog for mutation). The drafts-folder resolution note is helpful context but is not usage routing.

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