read-draft

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. While it implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state behavioral traits like non-destructiveness, idempotency, or authorization needs. The description is adequate but lacks full transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences, each essential: usage indication, return description, and exclusion of alternative. Front-loaded with the primary use case. No wasted words.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return structure. It lists key returned fields and distinguishes from list-drafts. Missing minor details like error conditions or prerequisites, but sufficient for a 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%, but the description adds context by stating the tool reads a draft selected from list-drafts, implying the draft_id parameter comes from that source. The parameter name and pattern are self-explanatory, and the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads the full current contents of a draft, lists the returned fields (draft_id, From, recipients, subject, full body), and distinguishes itself from list-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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('reading the full current contents of one draft selected from list-drafts') and when not to use ('only need draft summaries – use list-drafts').

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