get_page_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only inspection (via 'Inspect'), discloses the conditional output ('if a commit is in progress'), and notes the draft is local. It does not cover error behavior or details of 'meta', but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase adds value—naming the object, listing return fields, and noting the conditional behavior—without any redundancy or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values, including the conditional behavior. It could optionally mention what happens if the draft doesn't exist, but this is not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter draft_id is fully described in the schema ('Draft id'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, but the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource 'a local page draft'. It enumerates the exact contents returned (meta, section ids, total section count, and conditional page_id + committed_count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_page_draft, commit_page_draft, or list_page_drafts.

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 implies usage when you have a draft_id and want to inspect its state, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools like list_page_drafts, making the usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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