ofw_list_drafts

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

It discloses behavior far beyond the annotations: default sync behavior, what 'complete' means semantically, the stable draftKey across draft edit churn, and the UNVERIFIED_EMPTY refusal plus remedy. This is especially valuable because there is no output schema and readOnlyHint=false is otherwise under-explanatory. No contradiction with annotations 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 long but every sentence carries a unique, decision-relevant fact: one-call verification, cache-only mode, complete semantics, draftKey stability, empty-refusal and autoRefresh remedy. It is front-loaded with the core one-call promise and is as tight as the complexity allows.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return semantics, and it does: complete boolean, result UNVERIFIED_EMPTY, draftKey, cacheStatus, view shapes, and failure remedies. An agent has enough to call it correctly, interpret the response, and handle edge cases without further investigation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics for verify, autoRefresh, and view beyond their schema text, including defaults, cost implications, and result-set consequences. However, page and size receive no additional meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'List draft messages', then sharpens it with 'verified against OurFamilyWizard in ONE call'. It clearly distinguishes this from draft-mutating siblings like ofw_save_draft and ofw_delete_draft, and from ofw_list_messages, by focusing on drafts and their freshness/verification semantics.

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 gives explicit conditions for parameter choices: 'Pass verify:false to answer purely from the cache' and 'pass autoRefresh:true to sync and answer instead' when UNVERIFIED_EMPTY occurs. It does not, however, explicitly contrast this tool with sibling list tools (e.g., when to use list_drafts vs list_messages), so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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