get_draft_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implicitly signals a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 when the draft note is not found), authentication requirements, or how draft notes relate to the merge request lifecycle. For a no-annotation tool, this is thin disclosure.

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?

A single 10-word sentence that states the operation with zero filler. The core scoping ('single draft note from a merge request') is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple get-by-ID operation and all parameters are documented in the schema, so a brief description is acceptable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not clarify the return value, failure semantics, or how a draft note differs from a regular merge request note. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with all three parameters (project_id, draft_note_id, merge_request_iid) already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but per the baseline rule, the schema does the heavy lifting and a 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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('draft note'), and scopes it to 'a merge request.' The modifier 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_draft_notes, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schema definitions.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_draft_notes (for multiple drafts), get_merge_request_note (for published notes), or publish_draft_note. The word 'single' only weakly implies a contrast with listing. An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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