mail_drafts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' is consistent. It adds the detail that only draft IDs are returned, which is valuable, but does not disclose pagination, authentication, or other behaviors. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices informative content—a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 output schema likely covers return format, but the description is too sparse for a list tool with two parameters. It lacks guidance on pagination, ordering, or parameter usage. Given the schema coverage gap, the description is incomplete for effective use.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention account_id or limit at all, leaving the agent to infer from names. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('Gmail draft IDs'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mail_create_draft. The SMTP note adds useful context about availability, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for Gmail (since SMTP lacks a draft API) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like mail_search or mail_read. There are no clear exclusions or alternative routing, leaving usage largely implicit.

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