list_drafts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns (a listing operation is read-only). The description adds value by noting the returned fields, which supplements what annotations provide. There is no contradiction, and it adds contextual detail about the output shape beyond the annotation's safety declaration.

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?

Single concise sentence that states purpose and output fields with zero waste. Could arguably add sibling-differentiation guidance, but as written it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's statement of returned fields (title, creation date, audience) is the only return-shape documentation—it's helpful but minimal. For a simple listing tool with readOnly annotation and two well-documented params, this is adequate but not rich; pagination behavior or sorting could be noted to improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema documents both params (limit, offset). However, the description adds no param-related meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't mention pagination, defaults, or how limit/offset interact. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, but the description contributes zero additional parameter semantics beyond what's structured, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('List draft posts') and states the returned fields (title, creation date, audience). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_published_posts or list_scheduled_posts, but the resource name (drafts) along with the returned fields is reasonably clear.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. However, the sibling set includes list_published_posts and list_scheduled_posts, and 'draft' in the name plus 'audience' field implies it's for unpublished drafts. Context is implied but not stated; no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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