get_draft_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only action ('retrieve'), but it does not mention what happens if the prompt is not found, whether it returns null or errors, or any other side-effect-free confirmation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and precisely states the action and scope. Every word contributes to meaning with no 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?

This is a simple getter tool with two well-documented parameters. The description fully covers the purpose and scope, but it does not mention the return format or error behavior, which would normally be expected given the absence of an output schema. Still, for the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that prompt_id is the identifier and company_name is the scoping company, but it does not add new details beyond the schema, such as format or validation rules. It adequately aligns with the schema but does not enhance it.

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 ('retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('previously saved draft prompt') and the scoping ('by ID for a specific company'). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_draft_prompts (listing) and save_draft_prompt (saving).

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 context is clear: use this when you need a specific saved draft prompt by ID for a company. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the retrieval semantics are unambiguous. A score of 4 reflects the lack of explicit alternative guidance while acknowledging the clarity of the intended use.

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