substack_get_drafts

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. 'List all drafts' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how drafts are ordered, if there's pagination, or what the output format looks like. It lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user data.

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 extremely concise with just three words ('List all drafts'), front-loading the core action and resource without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'drafts' entail (e.g., unpublished posts), how results are returned, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely returns user-specific data, more context is needed to ensure proper usage, especially without structured fields to fill the 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as the description aligns with the empty 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 'List all drafts' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('drafts'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'substack_get_posts' (which lists published posts) and 'substack_create_draft' (which creates drafts), though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'substack_get_posts' for retrieving published content. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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