iris_list_drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers the source folder ('staging mail folder') and an ordering hint ('recent'), but it does not mention authentication needs, whether results are scoped to the current user, or how the 'limit' parameter affects behavior.

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 filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool lists and where the data comes from.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the core listing behavior is adequately conveyed. Yet the description omits authentication context and usage conditions, leaving an agent to guess when it is safe or appropriate to call this tool.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the single 'limit' parameter. The property name and default of 10 make the meaning partially obvious, but the description adds no detail about whether it caps results, enables pagination, or controls page size.

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 clear verb and resource ('List recent messages') and identifies the source ('staging mail folder'), which distinguishes it from sibling create/update/delete tools. However, it does not explicitly name 'drafts' or an alternative read tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor whether authentication (via iris_login) is required first. The description implies a read operation but leaves the selection context entirely to inference.

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