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. It discloses the return content ('draft keys, sequences, and preview content') and implies read-only behavior through 'List', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or pagination beyond the schema's offset parameter. This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently add usage guidance. Every word contributes value, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and usage well. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling, which would be beneficial for a tool with no annotations, making it minimally complete but not thorough.

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 fully documents the single parameter (offset). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 clearly states the action ('List all drafts') and resource ('for the current user'), distinguishing it from siblings like discourse_get_draft (singular) or discourse_list_user_posts (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all list-type siblings (e.g., discourse_list_categories), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 clear context for usage ('Use this to find existing drafts before updating them'), which implicitly suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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