tg_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the content of the output (drafts and chats) but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, how it handles large accounts, or if there are any side effects. The description is more of a return-value summary than a behavioral disclosure.

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 directly states the tool's output. Every word contributes meaning, and it is immediately clear what the tool does. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple parameterless tool with an output schema, this description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about when to use it, how it relates to other draft/schedule tools, or potential edge cases (e.g., empty drafts, archived chats). The output schema may cover return structure, but the behavioral and usage gaps lower 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool with full schema coverage earns a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 that the tool returns every unsent draft along with the associated chat. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the phrase 'Every unsent draft in the account' unambiguously defines a listing operation. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'tg_draft' (singular) by implying aggregate retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of tg_draft for individual drafts, nor any context on filtering, pagination, or limitations. It simply states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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