list_drafts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses output shape (total, rows, truncated bodyPreview), sorting order, and the important doNotContact behavior with blocked sending. It omits auth/permission details, but those are not critical for a simple read/list operation.

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 focused sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and ordering, the second adds return-shape detail and a behavior-critical warning. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema 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 simple list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, ordering, return elements, and a critical filtering caveat. A small gap is that pagination behavior isn't explicitly tied to limit/offset, though the schema defaults mitigate that.

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 only 33% because projectId is the only parameter with a description. The description adds no detail for limit or offset, leaving their semantics entirely to schema names and defaults, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: lists pending_review drafts for a project, newest first. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents and discard_drafts by scoping to the draft review workflow.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool is the drafts-listing entry point, and it explicitly instructs how to handle doNotContact rows — discard them because sending is blocked. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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