list_draft_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Lists' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is adequate. However, it does not disclose additional traits such as whether drafts are only visible to the author or if any special authentication is needed. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly states the action and object. While it is sparse, it is appropriately concise for a simple list operation and does not waste 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation, two parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It states what the tool does and implies the return is a list of draft comments. However, the lack of an output schema means the description could have clarified the return format or any limitations (e.g., pagination), but this is not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 compensate. It references 'a CL' which provides minimal context for the change_id parameter but does not explain the gerrit_base_url parameter at all. The description adds no substantial meaning beyond the parameter names and types already present in 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's function: 'Lists all draft comments on a CL.' The verb 'lists' is specific and the resource 'draft comments' distinguishes it from sibling list_change_comments (which presumably lists published comments). It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the phrase 'draft comments,' suggesting it is appropriate when viewing unpublished comments, but it lacks explicit exclusions such as 'use list_change_comments for published comments.' Context is present but not explicit guidance.

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