ipt_get_draft_eml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the result (the draft EML) without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no draft exists, error handling, permissions, or the response format. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no safety hints.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately concise. It front-loads the core information (draft EML) and avoids redundancy. However, it is terse to the point of being vague, so it loses one point for structure that could be more action-oriented.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the core return value (draft EML) but lacks context about the response format, potential errors, or how this differs from other metadata endpoints. It is minimally sufficient but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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% (the single parameter 'shortname' has a pattern and description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter—it does not explain how the shortname relates to the resource or any constraints beyond the schema. Staying at baseline 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 is a noun phrase stating what the IPT holds, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. The tool name implies a get operation, but the description itself does not clearly state the action. It identifies the resource as 'draft EML' which is specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling get_* tools (e.g., ipt_get_metadata, ipt_get_status) beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions under which a draft EML exists, nor does it contrast with related getters like ipt_get_metadata or ipt_get_publication_status. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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