get_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the output contents—title, body HTML, cover—and implies a read-only operation via '查询', but it does not mention error cases, permissions, or side effects. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool but not exhaustive.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose and return contents, and one line defines the parameter. There is no redundant phrasing or repetition of schema information.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned and where the ID comes from. The remaining gaps are explicit usage differentiation from sibling tools and edge-case behavior, which are minor but would improve completeness.

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% and the schema only provides type/title. The description compensates fully by explaining that media_id is the draft ID returned by the draft-creation tools or obtainable from list_drafts, which is exactly the semantic information an agent needs to populate the parameter correctly.

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 action (查询草稿详情) on a specific resource (draft identified by media_id), and further specifies that it returns the full news_item fields including title, body HTML, and cover. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create/list/delete tools.

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 gives useful operational guidance by explaining where media_id comes from (create_news_draft, create_newspic_draft, or list_drafts). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_draft over list_drafts or how it differs from them; the when-to-use context is only implied by the verb 'get' and the mention of '详情'.

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