draft_list_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all draft schedules' but does not mention pagination behavior, although the schema includes limit/offset with a max limit of 100, so 'all' is potentially misleading. There is no mention of ordering, read-only nature, or any side effects.

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, concise sentence that communicates the primary action and target resource. It is front-loaded with the verb and avoids unnecessary detail, making it efficient for a simple list operation.

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 tool is low in complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what distinguishes a 'draft schedule' from a regular schedule, nor does it mention the return format or any caveats about the 'all' claim despite the limit parameter. Given the extensive sibling toolset, more context would help distinguish usage cases.

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%, so both 'limit' and 'offset' parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the word 'all', which may slightly conflict with the default/max limit of 100, but it does not provide additional parameter-level context.

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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('draft schedules'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'list_schedules' and 'vast_list_schedules' which operate on non-draft or VAST-specific schedules. The 'draft' modifier provides unambiguous scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_schedules' or 'vast_list_schedules'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or why one would choose draft schedules over the live versions.

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