List draft themes

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false`, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact information returned (clone origin and last modified time), which is behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then details the output. No filler or redundant information is present. The structure front-loads the core purpose.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the scope (site), the object (drafts), and the included fields. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but that is likely unnecessary for a low-complexity tool. The lack of an output schema is compensated by describing the output contents.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter `site_id`, including its optionality and default behavior. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'theme drafts', and specifies the returned data ('what each was cloned from and when it was last touched'). It reads as a distinct operation from the sibling `list_themes` which presumably lists active themes, so it differentiates well.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_themes` or `get_theme`. It implies usage for viewing draft themes, but offers no explicit guidance on when `list_themes` should be chosen instead. The context signals suggest a sibling grouping, but the description leaves the choice to inference.

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