list_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. It only adds that draft ids are returned, but omits behavioral details such as auth requirements, pagination behavior, sorting, and whether full message content is excluded. Some useful info is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 concise sentence that clearly states the action and the return value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks guidance on max_results semantics and does not leverage sibling distinctions. It provides the core purpose and return shape, which is minimally adequate, but leaves an agent without enough context for confident invocation.

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 only 50%; the account parameter is documented in the schema, but max_results is not described anywhere. The description does not compensate for this gap by explaining what max_results controls or how it affects results.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List draft messages' and notes the return value is draft ids. It is clear and distinct from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar listing/searching tools.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_messages or read_message. The intended context is only implied by the name and description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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