get_draft_note

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

The read-only claim duplicates readOnlyHint, but the description adds useful error semantics: missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 front-loaded and readable, with purpose and usage appearing early. However, the final sentence contains boilerplate about group_id and pagination fields that do not apply to this tool's schema, adding noise and diminishing conciseness.

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 single-resource getter with three required identifiers, the description sufficiently covers when to use it, its read-only nature, and error behavior. No output schema exists, but the missing return-format details are a minor gap for a straightforward draft-note retrieval.

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 schema already documents the three parameters. The description mostly repeats the URL-encoded path guidance and adds generic instruction about pagination fields, which are not present in this schema. It provides little meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single draft note from a merge request.' It also distinguishes itself from list/search tools by positioning this as the option for a known resource or result, which separates it from siblings like list_draft_notes.

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 says to use this tool for a known resource and to choose the corresponding list or search tool when discovery is needed. It does not name a specific sibling such as list_draft_notes, but the selection rule is clear and actionable.

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