hex-list-draft-guides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one genuine behavioral fact — results are paginated — but says nothing about return shape, ordering, permissions, or whether drafts are user- or workspace-scoped, all of which matter for deciding whether to call it.

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?

A single short sentence with the key information front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little content to structure.

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 list tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent without pagination mechanics, result shape, or scope. The pagination hint is the only substantive addition.

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?

Both parameters (after, limit) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The word "paginated" only weakly hints that a cursor and page size exist; no format, defaults, or bounds are given for either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("draft guides"), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling write operations hex-upsert-guide-draft, hex-delete-guide-draft, and hex-publish-guide-drafts. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, but the read vs. write split is inferable from the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other guide operations, nor any prerequisite or scope note (e.g., whether it returns drafts for the calling user or the whole workspace). Usage is only implied by the name.

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