list_drafts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only metadata is returned and body content is excluded, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape. This is moderate disclosure, adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

One concise sentence with no fluff, front-loads the action and resource, and packs the important metadata-only limitation into a short clause. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description captures the core operation and key output restriction, and even lists some returned fields. However, it omits pagination/limit behavior and whether draft IDs are included, which an agent would need to follow up with get_draft. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 already clearly defines domain and localPart. The description adds only the high-level context that these constitute 'a mailbox' and no extra parameter-level detail 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('drafts for a mailbox'), and clarifies the return is metadata-only with specific fields (to/subject/updated_at) and no body, which distinguishes it from get_draft. This is unambiguous and precisely scoped.

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?

It clearly signals this is the listing tool for drafts of a mailbox, and the 'no body' caveat implies get_draft should be used when full content is needed, though it does not explicitly name that alternative or exclusion. Clear context without exhaustive when-not-to-use guidance.

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