jianying_list_drafts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the return payload (duration, canvas size) — useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about recursion depth, missing/invalid drafts root handling, or performance, which matters for a filesystem-scanning tool.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope and returned fields front-loaded and the usage cue second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it lists and what it returns, which is most of what an agent needs. Only edge-case behavior for the drafts root override is left unstated.

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% and the single optional draftsRoot parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description alludes to the "drafts root" but adds no default-value or override semantics 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 (List) plus resource (JianYing drafts under the drafts root) and even names the returned fields (duration, canvas size). It is distinguishable from open/create/add tools, though it doesn't clarify how it differs from the nearby jianying_inspect_draft sibling.

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?

"Use this before opening an unknown draft" gives a clear, actionable usage context and implies the alternative (jianying_open_draft) should follow it. It doesn't state exclusions or mention jianying_inspect_draft, so a sibling could still be ambiguous.

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